Will Alyce Laviolette Be Charged With Perjury?

RHOAPhaedrabuttermilkBased on the “issue” being related to Alyce and the defense looking miserable and Juan appearing thrilled, it would not surprise me if an impeachment action perjury charge against Alice Laviolette is made Monday. Updated: (I’ve been enlightened a bit on legal process by some smart sounding commenters who tell me that a perjury charge could have all of Alyce’s testimony stricken entirely and that the “impeachment” occurred in cross for the reasons I state below and that there won’t be a “hearing” on impeachment.)

Updated: The prevailing opinion among some is that the motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct (mugging for photos)  is still open. It sounds like that is the reason we have not had a motion for mistrial from the defense for the past couple of days. Wong apparently has something to add related to the Jinkasaurus testimony. ( I believe Wong produced the segment on Juan’s popularity.) Didn’t Jinkasaurus answer a question with “I wouldn’t know about that, that is not part of my job…” or something similar? I’m not totally buying into this because Juan seemed so happy about everything in court today. Perhaps he knows that the motion is going to be denied and he was reacting to whatever the Alyce situation turns out to be.  It’s 2am and this is hour 15 or so of blogging on this so apologies if I am making less sense than usual.

jodialycedemeanorBut let’s look at the possible charges of impeachment as explained by CrossExam.com

Impeachment of an expert witness is the process of calling into question the credibility of the expert during cross-examination.  According to the United State Federal Rules of Evidence, any party may attack the credibility of any witness (including an expert witness) during a trial.

Adequate preparation before the trial begins is essential for the successful impeachment of an expert witness.  Such preparation involves becoming familiar with the expert’s credentials as well as the subject matter of the cross-examination.

Lack of qualification is an initial challenge to any expert. Does this expert possess such specialized knowledge of the subject of his or her testimony that the court should declare this witness to be an “expert”? This is where it pays to spend significant time scrutinizing the expert’s credentials.

Juan hinted at this today when bringing up her lack of a doctorate and questioning her educational background. I would say that someone who thinks that stabbing someone to death and shooting them in the face is not greater domestic violence than calling someone a three-hole wonder  is evidence enough of lack of qualifications.

Bias is one of the most common strategies for impeaching a witness at trial.  This involves demonstrating that the witness is motivated in his testimony by personal gain – actual payment for testifying in that particular case or the hope that testimony in this case will lead to more business as an expert witness.  Repeatedly testifying for the same side during trial is also sometimes grounds for impeachment because of bias.

It was interesting today that Alyce spoke up, unprompted about her retirement fund, and despite it being poorly funded….and Juan cut her off. Why was Alyce bringing up her financial status? It seemed like she was trying to defend taking on the case for financial gain.

Inconsistency is another reason for impeachment, and is generally the easiest to prove.  If the expert witness has previously made two or more conflicting statements, or if prior testimony is in conflict with the testimony being offered during the current proceedings, a strong case for impeachment due to inconsistency can be made.  Previous statements, such as those on affidavits, sworn statements, or previous depositions, should always be thoroughly reviewed prior to the beginning of testimony by an expert witness.  Contradictions or inconsistencies made during the current testimony can also be used as grounds for impeachment.

Juan brought up inconsistency today  as well. He made sure to get the change in her story about where Jodi was when she shot Travis into the record one more time today. On several other occasions he specifically said, “isn’t that inconsistent with your previous testimony?” Alyce has recently stated she had ‘mispoken’ enough times that we actually jokingly use the word ‘mispoken’ in the same way Alyce did. “I misspoken.”

Character of the expert witness can be called into question during cross-examination in order to prove justification for impeachment.  If the witness has a reputation for dishonesty, or has committed a crime involving dishonesty, such as fraud, embezzlement, or perjury, a case for poor character can be made.  This can go a long way toward convincing the court and jury that the testimony of the expert witness is not credible.  Specific examples of prior dishonest acts or crimes are not admissible unless the witness admits to them while on the stand.

It certainly seemed as though Alyce perjured herself today with regard to the question about testifying in criminal court on behalf of male domestic violence victims. I picked up on her lying and obvious incongruent body language right away. Juan was quick to jump on that. In fact it was his first question when he got his turn with Alyce today. Alyce essentially said she ‘misspoken’ again.

I think I have a pretty credible case for impeachment. Since all the above happened today, particularly the possible perjury perhaps Juan is going after Alyce on that charge. Do you have a better theory? (Edited to take into account better ways to say this based on comments. The bottom line remains that Alyce’s  testimony could be entirely stricken. Maybe. Or not. Is that better, legal eagles? :)  )

About these ads

545 Comments

Filed under jodi arias, News

545 responses to “Will Alyce Laviolette Be Charged With Perjury?

  1. Jennifer

    I like the way you think!

  2. tleigh

    You nailed it, Tamara.

    • Yes indeed. When judge Stevens told AL I dont want to hear about your personal problems you need to be here Tues you are still under suphena The look on AL face said it all. She knnows she is toast for her lies etc. I only hope after she is impeached or found to be perjured not only do they strike all of her yestimony they also withold her hefty payment. Her credibility(or lack of) will now cause this stubborn Woman to nevr be takem serious again in her field.

      • That would be awsome, impeach her testimony and don’t pay here, I wondering if she knew what she was coming, would she have testified? Her life is ruined

      • George Ferenzi

        Her life should be ruined she had the nerve
        to get on the stand and lie being completely
        biased and having feelings by of all things
        apologizing to a murderer who butchers a
        young man and she is using domestic violence as an excuse for the defendants
        actions. Shame on her it’s a slap
        in the face to woman who are true victims.
        Jodi is hardly a victim.

  3. khintx

    I agree. Alyce is screwed. kh

  4. Justobserving

    I completely agree. I just found your post. I was already copying what you have so expertly presented here. You have presented the points beautifully. Obviously Juan Martinez was absolutely going after the same thing in a very systematic way. He has an excellent case for impeachment, IMHO. With this judge it is hard to tell how things will play out, but it will be a very interesting day Tuesday. Thanks for posting!

    • This is what i believe is goingto appen, perjury. Lying on the stand, bias for te defendent, its all there. I think Juan had just cause even last week. I like how both Juan and Judge Stephens let the crap roll, then catch them on inconsistacy. The judge kept allowing, nor rder, in my opinion to et defense “mess up” big time. The more ya talk, the easier for the lies to spew the wrong way. Thats why lits aways screw up. They cannot remember the whole long snake of lies.

  5. dawnspitfire

    I was thinking about that too. And the judge was not nice to Alyce about coming back either. Its the first time in a long drawn out serious trial that I’ve seen this judge get snappy.

    • Carmen Nieves

      And she was really disrespectful with the judge when she started protesting about having something to do on Tuesday after the judge told her she was still under subpoena.

      • wow….can I just say ‘issues’? this woman has a lot to live down.

      • Carmen

        Hi Carmen! My name is Carmen Nieves too. When I saw your post, I said to myself “I don’t remember writing this”. I’ve never seen anyone with my first and last name. Too funny. Anyhow, I’m just saying hello.

        I like this blog and I’d love to see perjury charges brought against ALV. She lied to protect Jodi who is an admitted murderer and ALV killed Travis over and over again with her lies and bias.

      • Carmen Nieves

        My goodness! That never happened to me before! Lets compare notes, we might be related.
        I don’t know what’s happening on Monday but I’m sure it has to do with Alyce. There is no way the judge would want her there if it was related to Juan’s alledgelly “misconduct”. Or maybe there are two separate issues.
        Be well.

    • The Liz Lemon

      I noticed that too, and had to replay it several times because I thought my ears and eyes were deceiving me. Judge Stephens was quite stern and frankly, gave LV a smackdown when she tried explaining her ‘personal issues’. For the first time in that courtroom, someone other than JM wasn’t coddling this overly (mentally) touchy-feely and heavily biased witness. And for the first time, I had respect for the judge.

  6. steve

    lav certainly fits more of that criteria than ja did for ptsd. Even if her testimony is imeached i hope she gets some kind of reprimand for appoaching the Alexander family

  7. Her term for lying or embellishing appears to be “misspoke”. If she wasn’t called on that lie she would have let it stand. She knew exactly how many cases she had testified in a criminal court on behalf of a male. Especially since the number was ZERO! First she said “one or two”….then she started to hedge on her answer and still had a difficult time just straight up confessing to the truth. Instead she repeated “I don’t have my cv in front of me”. er…..um…..do you really need your cv when you know full well that the number is ZERO? One can only guess how many times she “misspoke” but didn’t get called out on it.
    At this point she has no credibility whatsoever in this case, and from the juror questions they are likely of the same opinion. There probably is no need to impeach her as she has come across as an obstinant, belligerent, bumbling, biased fool. And this is the best the defense can produce? If so, then they are sorely lacking.
    At the onset, I thought there might be some wiggle room to allow for the (very slim) possibility of self defense, but as time goes on premeditation is becoming rock solid

    • Sue Ceron

      A.L. misspeaking seems to be “a pattern” LOL

    • Premeditation was always there for me……rented a car away from her hometown…..wanted a non descript vehicle…..changed her hair colour after renting car….picked up two gas cans from ex boyfriend…..bought a third at a Walmart in California…..no record of her taking it back as she says…duh….we all know Walmart’s policy…..shut her phone off for the duration of her stay in Arizona…..took the front licence plate off and turned the back one upside down…..no evidence of her ever being in Arizona except for the pictures on the camera, and she was as big as life…doing thehodi thing that hooked Travis in from day one of them meeting…..a lie that sticks out for me from before Travis died was that thehodi said he walked up to her and introduced himself in Las Vegas, but I heard Dave Hughes say twice that he introduced them….duh….I believe Dave…

      • NOTfog lady

        The GUN..the gun…the gun!!!!! Travis didn’t have one….Jodi brought the gun!!!!

      • I read somewhere that she wanted a white car because that was the color of one of the roomate’s cars and prople might think it was his and go unnoticed. Someone also theorized that not only did she not want her peroxide hair noticed but that if seen people might think she was Mimi Hall just going in to get ready for the Cancun trip.

      • Jerry Branum

        remember Beverly Jodi name was on that ticket to cancun up till 1 month before the trip and Travis took Jodi name off and put mimi’s name on it so thats the reason for the cold blooded killing.jodi went to travis house the night before and sexed him all up hoping he would change his mind and when he said no thats when she carried out her premeditated murder plan. STICK A NEEDLE IN HER ASS AND PUT HER OUT OF EVERYONE’S LIFE.

    • Pat

      I HAVE BEEN WONDERING WHAT THE PROBLEM COULD BE…..AND THIS ALL IS MAKING SENSE NOW……I SO, AGREE WITH ALL THESE POSTS….

  8. #KeepinitrealinFWTX

    I caught a glimpse of the judge snapping at her – what was that about? I hated I missed it as this judge hasn’t had any vocal input outside of – overruled sustained, and court is recessed.

    • The judge wanted Alyce to return Monday but she has a doctor’s appt. So the judge said she WILL come on Tuesday. Alyce said well, I may need to go for tests on Tuesday depending on what the doctor says on Monday. Then the judge said sternly(!!) Don’t tell me your personal problems, this takes precedence! It’s either Monday or Tuesday.

      That was from a judge who has barely looked alive let alone awake the entire trial. Whatever the issue is, it is about Alyce and the judge is PISSED.

      • It was annoying that mz laviolette felt the need to expound on her personal issues. Kudos to the judge for shutting her down. the witness is a narcissistic know it all.

      • Sandy

        She just couldn’t help herself. I was in the courtroom on Friday for the juror questions and the follow up. Not only did she disrespect the prosecutor, but the Judge as well. She would tell Ms. LaViolette to answer Yes or No on several questions, but she just couldn’t do it. She is still under subpoena, so she had better be here.

      • sammiejane

        I completely thought the same thing when I saw the Judge’s reaction to LaViolette’s excuse. I for one am waiting to catch the judge snoring audibly but she got a little hitch in her giddy up when she snapped on LaValamp! It was CLASSIC! Way to show all those viewing you may have a bit of a backbone, Judge!!!

      • Edward

        I saw this too and was glad the Judge responded that way. ALV seems to be used to taking control in her job as a counsellor, working with victims/survivors and perpetrators of abuse. The problem for her is that when she tries it on with the Judge and JM, she’s out of her depth. In that regard, she reminds me of the defendent. The Judge didn’t get to where she is by being stupid, or a pushover…….
        Also, I had respect for her when she started out giving evidence, but she has no credibility now and actually, I feel sorry for anyone who was counselled by her in the past, if that is how she conducts herself at work.

    • Carmen

      You forgot “approach”

      • Sandra

        With all the “may we approach” requests from the defense, at least Kurt Nurmi is getting some exercise!

    • Jill Phillips

      cue 28:46

      Jodi Arias Trial – Day 46 – Part 3 – YouTube

    • not in my opinion. honestly, I’ve gleened enough knowledge just from living my life to do as good a job as she did….likely better.

      • alyca moraga

        Wow….that doesn’t look good. Not good at all.

      • Sally Forth

        And yet you cannot spell “gleaned” properly. So yeah, I believe you could do as good a job. Sure. Gotta go buy a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

      • This is a comment board not a spelling bee….or English class. Otherwise I’d call you out on “yeah”, “Gotta” and incomplete sentences. Get over yourself.

      • Tango

        Agreed cherry, the total lack of common sense in this case is frustrating. Laviolette does not realize that had she shut up a bit and given a yes or no she woulda made things a lot easier on herself.

    • @SueCeron I found that earlier this week, there are actually two that are cancelled. I believe the dates coincide with her undergraduate degree. If you recall she referenced that she was doing “testing”. Another lie because she wasn’t licensed to give a test as an undergraduate,.she may have been helping as an assistant or part of a class. That notation of cancelled is standard when a license is no longer activated (either expiration w/out renewal, lapsed insurance, failure to complete CE, etc.). The license she had was limited and required her to operate under specific supervision. Also the guy she worked under had his license revoked (he was a bad boy apparently) about 5 years later and after hers coinciding with her graduation year.. She does have a current license in family therapy, same website just different group. And that license is active and in good standing. All she has to do to keep it up is have her insurance paid and complete her CE credits. If you check out her website and her 20 page CV Alycie also delivers CE courses so I think that most likely explains why she claims she has 50 CE credits per year. Most are probably offered online like in most fields or in a large hotel where attendance is just sign in, disappear whenever you want, sleep and collect your credit as long as you pay the fee.

      • Karen

        I gave that some thought, But then I remembered how near computer illiterate she claims to be. So testing online would be something gosh, almost all kids do, today/

    • Audrey Ellertson

      Is it a coincidence that this file…the one you found on the internet…was updated April 11, 2013? I think not

    • alessa

      That’s her CA license… does anyone know what state she purportedly practices from? Also, she is in no position to qualify herself as a domestic violence expert. She simply does not have the education and training for it, which JM so delightfully began to point out today. I can honestly say that so much of her testimony consisted of generalities, speculation, and outright unethical character assessments of a victim who has never been interviewed. No licensed psychologist would make the sweeping statements on the stand that she has made, or demonstrated such blatant unwillingness to consider other possibilities or perceptions.

      I am really hoping her testimony gets impeached, because it is that very unwillingness that very clearly demonstrates her glaring biases in regards to this case… this is just wrong and hard to watch. It is as if she has made up her mind about JA and refuses to believe otherwise, regardless of mounting evidence against her client– I can’t even begin to explain how unprofessional and entirely outside of the scope of her career that is…Any professional counselor or therapist would be willing and able to reassess the case based on more information, and would never make an absolute conclusion about the dynamics of a relational situation without having interviewed the other partner.

      The fact that she made her immutable assessment based on the words of someone who is fighting for her life (“I don’t see any reason why she would lie…” really?!) and who has demonstrated pathological lying behavior, as well as text messages and journal entries is laughable. I know this has probably been said many times before–but it is often infuriating to me that JM can’t simply focus on that fact–to me, it nullifies the witness’ entire testimony.

      And finally– I do have to admit that based on the text and email messages that Alexander appeared to be verbally and emotionally abusive to Jodi. However, I think there is strong evidence that Jodi participated in reciprocating that type of abuse as well. And there is such a thing as reciprocal domestic violence, it is quite unfortunate that this witness cannot seem to accept or grasp that. But at the end of the day–how much does the verbal abuse, the name calling, and the manipulating have to do with what Jodi Arias did? Verbal abuse does not prove physical violence, and it also doesn’t justify stabbing someone 30 times and shooting them in the face. A lot of us would be dead by now if this were the case.

      If Jodi Arias was set off to heinously murder someone because of purported verbal abuse, is this the type of person who can ever be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society?

      I am not condoning this behavior or attempting to normalize it at all, but how many of us have been insulted by a man or an ex before in their entire lives? Alexander does not seem like a very upstanding gentleman in that regard, but the fact that when asked about his brutal murder, all the witness can say is essentially “a lot of angry women just don’t know when it’s enough,” (referring to her practically mutilating him) is shocking and disturbing to me. It’s as if she’s completely unwilling to acknowledge what a tremendous, criminal, and pathological overreaction the murder was–and that’s scarily biased. It really sounds to me as if she has already decided that he deserved it.

      Sorry to beat a dead horse, guys!

      • Shellbelle

        Who hasn’t been mad at their spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, lover and said mean shit? I’ve had some knock down, drag out fights where my husband and I have said worse than Travis and neither of us are abusive in any way. We are human, we get pissed, we vent, get over it, apologize and move on.

      • alessa

        Agreed! I’ve had those types of situations too, where I or the other person lost their temper and said regrettable things. I’m not excusing it–it’s not healthy behavior and can be destructive to a person’s psyche and the relationship regardless of apologies. But it’s not cause for driving hundreds of miles to murder someone.

        Domestic violence is a serious word with serious connotations to me. In my personal opinion, and this could conflict with many others or the psychological community, name-calling and insults, while abusive, are not domestic violence. Alyce clearly stated today that Jodi was a “battered woman,” while also earlier admitting that she had no evidence of physical violence. “Battered woman” is a serious description to toss around, especially if you’ve actually been one or seen one. Horrible thing for her to say so lightly.

      • becky white

        There is a theroy that you take your victim as you find them. If you have a mentally unballanced person, in this case JA, and you repeatedly verbally and emotionally abuse her – well it apparently lead to her murdering TA. I am not defending her – I am saying that a person who was not already a mentally disturbed would not have responded by murdering TA. So could TA not tell she was mentally disturbed. Did he know but just not care and kept verbally and emotionally abusing her? Would that make a difference to any of you – if you found out that he did know she was disturbed yet kept mentally and verbally abusing her?

        I am just asking.

      • Shellbelle

        You have a point, however, I think we all know someone who’s a little batshit crazy. I know people who are a lot crazy, but wouldn’t kill. If she had not been medically diagnosed ( and told him) how would he know the difference? To me, there is a difference in crazy as hell and mentally crazy and sometimes they look an awful lot alike.

      • alessa

        But if we say that the decision to take another life is a precursor to a pathology, every single person who decided to commit murder is then mentally disturbed, and our prisons would be empty and our mental institutions would be full of murderers.

        There is a difference between someone who commits murder because they are so mentally ill that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong (e.g., a mentally challenged individual or, a schizophrenic who hears voices commanding them to kill someone) and someone who commits murder knowing that it is wrong, and yet still does it because it is satisfying or gratifying to them. She knew it was wrong because she tried to cover it up and lied about it. And I do have to add, someone who stabs another 30 times, shoots them in the face, etc., is not horrified by what they are doing–in fact, it points to the opposite.

        In my opinion, being mentally ill is not a justification or excuse for committing a horrible crime. Many of us have suffered from PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders, abusive situations– if we all used these conditions to act on the most primitive urges in our head in that moment, our society would be bereft of any morality let alone order.

      • puravidacostarica

        @Alessa – bravo!

      • Lorri Smith

        But, don’t forget, Travis only sent her 2 emails/texts that were “verbally abusive”. Quite a stretch to justify savagely murdering him.

      • Can I add, Lorri Smith, that those texts may have been quite accurate? Everything he said to her seemed to be in response to behavior that she exhibited. I believe he called her a sociopath, which she appears to be true. I believe he said something along the lines that she was the worst thing that ever happened to him, which is certainly true. In fact everything he wrote described her bizarre behavior. Why are his texts considered abusive if he is pointing out her crazy behavior. It sounds more like she is abusive and he is calling her out on it.

      • I believe that abusive text was in response to something big, as well… he is VERY angry and fed up in it, and boy, do I think Jodi snapped at that point. She is way too narcissistic to allow that to go by with no response. In fact, I don’t think she ever let anything go… I don’t think that’s her personality… people said she would correct their grammar, etc. No, this girl is no waif, that’s for sure.

        In response to why someone would continue to see someone like this is simple really… no one REALLY imagines that this “crazy” person is REALLY going to KILL.
        We normal people don’t think like that… yes, we know there are killers out there, but we simply cannot accept fully that we are actually that close to someone like that. It’s the “won’t happen to me” kind of denial… it’s totally reasonable for people to assume that the person next to them will NOT kill them… we do not live our lives under that constant threat, so it is easy for us to miss clues that might otherwise give us pause.

        I’m sure Travis believed that he could get rid of her eventually… that she had just moved back to CA, and maybe they will have a friendly phone relationship and maybe a few more sexual encounters, but the intensity will wear off, and Jodi will find a new distraction, and he would finally be free of the complications & turmoil that Jodi provided. I just gotta think that that was along the lines of his thinking. And I would think a man might be less inclined to report incidences of stalking than a woman… a woman might be more fearful after these behaviors from her mate, but a man might not be if he doesn’t realize the severity of the intent of his partner… again, thinking time and persistence is what is needed to purge the “problem”…

        Slashing tires, snooping, sneaking into the house, & interfering with his dating life, I’m sure did not seem to him to be the precursor for MURDER. I don’t think he was “extremely afraid” of her… YET… he was getting there… but she got to him before he could see her deeply enough.

      • I have read on another site that a possible reason for the text to Jodi where he is clearly mad, is because Jodi was using the phone sex to sort of blackmail him as he was not aware she had recorded the phone sex. It has been suggested when she told Travis she had the phone sex recording, he blew a gasket and that was the reason for the nasty text to her. She may have told him she was going to let the people/Bishop from his church listen to the tape. I don’t know if this is true but it sure makes sense and could explain his outrage. Maybe when he allowed Jodi to come over that last fatal evening/early morning, he was going to try and reason with her to delete the phone sex conversation. This was right around the time he was suggesting to his friends he was extremely fearful of her. Poor Travis, he probably was too ashamed to even confide in his friends of this situation. If true, this would explain why it is possible that none of his friends can collaborate if this is what upset him so much.

      • NOTfog lady

        She “practices” in California per her website

      • Daryl Morris

        Mamarj, I am wondering if that is my post you saw on another site because that is my theory as well. Travis was unaware of that recorded phone sex tape and I believe she threatened to release it if he didn’t cancel his plans with Mimi and take her to Cancun instead. Along with the gas can from Wal-Mart, four tubes of sunscreen were also on that receipt.

    • Elisabeth

      Send to hon
      Excellent research

      • becky white

        OK if he called her a sociopath, then apparently he did know she was mentally unbalanced. Why then did he continue to sleep with her? I am certainly NOT saying he deserved to be murdered . But he did apparently know she was unbalanced and yet he continued to verbally and emotionally abuse her.

        I can see where someone on the jury may start to think that he pushed her over the edge. It will only take one. Did she decide to murder him before they slept together for the last time or was something said during that encounter that unleashed her murderous rath? Was she thinking she might want to kill him but was waiting to see how he reacted to something she told him? Would it matter to someone on the jury?

        I pose these questions because everyone seems to think is will be a slam dunk guilty verdict but I thought OJ would be a slam dunk. You simply don’t know what a particular juror is thinking and what their particular life experiences may be.

        Also I do think it is possible that she might not remember every detail or even most of the details of killing him no matter how much of a sociopath she is. She may have blocked it from her memory because even to a sociopath what she did was so horrific.

        In her warped mind she loved him but she also wanted him dead.

        I do not think she is insane by the legal definition but I do think she is insane.

      • Lynn

        He called her a sociopath shortly before she murdered him.

      • mhoosh

        Pushed over the edge to plot his murder? Pretty sure even the May 10th sex audio tape was planned on her part to use later should she need it – once he swapped her name out on the PPL Cancun registry (rebuttal case witness coming on that one) which was around May 15th – then Jodi went crazy and must have blackmailed Travis that she was sending the tape and other pics to the bishop and PPL – hence his rant on the 26th to her saying she was pure evil… Jodi called Darryl Brewer and asked for the gas cans for a trip to Mesa (testified to 2x that she said that to him) in mid may timeframe… so she wasn’t pushed over the edge and “snapped” because that implies she never planned the murder to begin with and we have too much evidence to the contrary.

      • I was going to say what lynn said. It wasnt until May 28th that he called her a sociopath, unless there were other times that I’m unaware of. That was mere days before he was killed, so he wasn’t still sleeping with her.

      • I say she was holding the phone sex against him threatened to show the church and elders “she was black mailing him”That’s why he kept allowing her to do what she wanted. He was stuck with her he had a lot to lose. That text message proves he was done with her.I also don’t believe he invited her in his home. I think she invited herself into his house and he was held hostage.He went along with the sex part that day hoping she would leave.I feel terrible for Travis :-(

      • <<<>>

        In answer to your question, “Why did he continue to sleep with her?” I have a couple of theories.

        1) Some men are just drawn to ‘crazy’, for whatever reason. The sex is hot, she’s up for anything, and it becomes addictive. Travis was no choirboy, and he obviously had some kinks, but nothing that was illegal. Yes, I know that he made the comments about a 12 year old girl, which I found disturbing, but that is not a crime. Only if he acted on it with an actual 12 year old, or possessed child porn, would it be illegal. Nothing like that was ever found, so it’s a safe bet that it was just a comment he made, and nothing more. JA was willing to satisfy these fantasies, and I’m pretty sure he probably never had that before with his other Mormon relationships. For a 30 year old man, that could be a very powerful draw.

        2) IF she was diagnosed as a sociopath, which to my knowledge she hasn’t, then he was just name calling. She says in her journals that they argue, make up and have hot sex, or in some cases phone sex.This can become an addictive dance between two people.

        3) Even if she was a sociopath, that doesn’t mean that she was mentally unbalanced. She knew right from wrong. Her pre-planning, and clean up after the crime prove that she was able to distinguish between them.Sociopaths are often charming, which is how they are able to fool, and manipulate people for so long. They adapt and become whatever they think will suit them the best, in whatever situation they find themselves in.

        4) I found it interesting that almost all of Travis’ male friends found Jodi “creepy”. I’ve seen interviews with probably 6 or 8 of his friends, and all but one said they were creeped out when they met her, and many tried to warn Travis to stay away from her, but obviously he couldn’t see it. Some said she had a strange expression, kind of dead eyes, and she was there, but didn’t SEEM to be there in reality. It was like she was looking right through them. So it appears that Travis’ warning radar wasn’t working when it came to JA.

      • the only time he had sexual relations after the may 28th “sociopath” text was the day of the murder and I don’t think it’s clear that they had sex, though risque pictures were taken. It’s even possible that she was exerting power over him to succumb to her desires.

    • Barbara Geiger

      Perhaps that is the issue that the Judge wants to talk to her about on Monday or Tuesday…..would be karma for her entire testimony to be tossed.

    • Sayub

      Ms. LaViolette’s Educational Background (on the 20th page of her CV!):

      1967 Associate Degree ? Physical Education
      1969 Bachelor?s Degree ? Psychology
      1980 Master?s Degree- Community Clinical Psychology
      1982 California Community College, lifetime teaching credential
      1992 Marriage, Family, Child Counseling, State License

      BA in Psych + Education Svcs Program qualify for Counselor / Masters qualifies for Occupational Therapist

      Interesting article from Bennett Pologe, Ph.D. – Credentials – Types of Psychotherapists

      The term “psychotherapist” is unlicensed; anyone — and I mean anyone — can call himself a psychotherapist. The same applies to the term “therapist”. “Psychologist”, on the other hand, requires some kind of licensure. The practitioner cannot call himself by this title unless he has met certain state and national requirements.

      http://www.aboutpsychotherapy.com/Tcredentials.php

    • Lisa Gorman

      I had brought that up several times. In Michigan she would not be able to testify as an expert. Her license under the supervision of that doctor was cancelled since his was revoked. She is NOT licensed in any state as I can see. Her testimony should hold no more weight than anyone of us.

      • I KEEP SEEING THIS COME UP. ASKED AND ANSWERED. Alyce is licensed in California, the cancelled license you are referring to is superseded by her current on. Objection, relevance…………fairytale.

      • Sandy

        She is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist – no more and no less.

      • can you practice in states other than those in which you hold a license?

      • Depends on the state. She practices in her licensing state (CA) but an expert witness can come from anywhere as long as the court recognizes them as an expert.

      • thanks tam, I wasn’t clear on that

      • Lisa Gorman

        You can not practice in a state that you are NOT licensed in. This does not apply to those that work for the military (health professionals only). When they go for licensure in another state, that state they are applying for licensure may have separate requirements i.e. testing in order to seek licensing. You can usually find the requirements for those states under their public health code or board rules.

      • I knew M.D.’s needed a license for each state but had no idea about therapists or other professions

  9. steve

    if her testimony gets impeached does she still get paid?

    • khintx

      YEs. They were just talkin bout that. The State must pay her. It is not likely they would charge her with purgery as she was only giving her opinion and so that would be pretty tricky. kh

      • but the question about how many times she testified for a man in a criminal case wasn’t an opinion….that would be a fact. And I believe a fact that she knew full well and was leading the jurors to believe otherwise

      • French

        I agree Cherry, I would think in this issue, that the state would haven’t to pay for biased , lie based testimony. Thanks

    • Sally Forth

      If you do work you are contracted for and it’s rejected afterwards do YOU still get paid?

      • LauraE

        I saw this answered on tv by a lawyer today regarding this potential problem with this expert witness and they said yes you still get paid, but you can be subject to other problems, like purjury etc. Because it is an opinion, that is the reason it is non refundable. However, if you lie about anything or of your credentials you can be subject to some kind of action. The lawyers on HLN were discussing it.

  10. omg Tamara you are awesome! I noticed that little dropped comment by Lavalamp about her retirement fund too and was wondering what she was going to say! I would LOVE it if Lava is impeached, and Juan is just ballsy enough to do it! It serves this woman right, as she has proven herself to be sloppy at best and biased at worst.

  11. puravidacostarica

    I’m not familiar with criminal procedure in Arizona, but impeachment usually just occurs as part of a cross-examination. What Juan MAY have brought to the judge’s attention is something that might be worthy of perjury charges, in which case he may ask the court for relief (either by oral or written motion), such as asking the judge to instruct the jury to disregard her testimony in its entirety. This, of course, assumes that it is serious enough to cast doubt on everything she has said on the stand — not that I believe that her testimony has even one shred of credibility, with or without perjury or false statements! Normally, however, courts’ determinations of an expert’s qualification to be an expert are preliminary determinations made before the expert is allowed to testify before a jury. So I doubt whatever is going on is qualifications-related. JMHO.

    • ‘rica, the expert witnesses were not…vetted…for lack of a better word before being admitted as an expert as I have seen in other states. The defense just said, hey look, see this lady here? she’s our expert! Perhaps there was some sort of paperwork involved in having her deemed an expert prior, that we are not privy to. It just seems like there was nothing much needed for her to have expert status. I dunno how it works in AZ either*, but apparently not very well. :)

      *I am not a lawyer, but I pretend to be really smart on the Internet.

      • She definitely did not seem prepared for this level of questioning, to be sure.

        I do think reciprocal domestic violence should’ve been addressed. It would make sense to discuss it.

        I just don’t like cyberbullying of Ms. LaViolette. She probably should’ve never been asked to do this high-profile of a case. She certainly doesn’t seem to realize what she’s gotten into. I’ll be interested to see what this “other issue” may be.

      • anniebannanie

        It has been widely reported that 11 (eleven) AZ DV experts were approached to be an expert witness; they declined. The defense then found LaV. in CA.

        IMO, the nail in her coffin was response to jury Q:

        “A gunshot to the head; a 4″ slice to the throat; almost 30 stab wounds. Do you not think that Ms Arias was the perpetrator?”

        Laviolette: “No”

    • also, wouldn’t an impeachment hearing have to occur in order to have the entire testimony thrown out? Perjury is a criminal offense and the accused would be afforded a trial replete with time to prepare a case, no?

    • Marfilyn

      I think too that consideration would be given to alyce and she stated many times “I reviewed the material that was given to me” by the defense. So, not to take away her egregious errors she didn’t have all the material that the defense did have in this case.

  12. diane ingoglia

    If she has lied then yes

  13. alyca moraga

    Some people on Twitter are posing the possibility of it being about “witness tampering” by talking to Travis Alexander’s sister. When the judge was talking about coming back on Tuesday with ALV, she said (something to the effect of) “YOU KNOW what issues we have to deal with on Tuesday”. Seems like she would know, if someone brought up her approaching TA’s sister – and that she wouldn’t really know if the prosecution were planning on impeaching her.

    • That makes no sense, Alyca. Samantha is not a witness to anything. Alyce could get in trouble for approaching Sam, probably just an admonishment, and that would have happened immediately after it was brought to the judge’s attn. There is no need for her to come back once finished testifying and back home to be told not to talk to the family.

      • Julie

        Travis Alexander’s sister

      • thanks julie. I didn’t know their names.

      • Tywatson

        It’s illegal for her to confront Travis’s family. Especially with a comment like “it’s not personal”. It is entirely possible that Juan is having her come back to address this.

      • valsocal

        I have A LOT of problems with Alyce calling herself an expert in this case. One problem is her complete lack of knowledge with texts,IMs,email (or as Alyce calls all of it gmail) and computers. These are the mediums JA and TA constantly communicated with each other and Alyce knows nothing about any of them.I personally use all of these and each are used differently in my communication with ppl. Texts are fast and quick almost a shorthand understood by the parties texting,IMs are like texting but not as fast and email can be quite lengthy with a lot of detail.ALL written word but all very different!Alyce is a very poor expert if she knows zero about the technology that was used constantly by JA and TA!
        Alyce the expert who hasn’t arrived in the 21st century yet? Ahhhhhh no!

        shorthand understood between the 2 texting

      • yes and it’s very difficult to get across tone in any of these mediums. Especially humor and sarcasm. There is also voice to text now which creates a whole new set of problems. For one thing you have a tendency to send ‘longer’ texts than when typing….and since most voice to text utilize auto correct I’ve sent and received some very weird texts. Heaven forbid my texts ever be used in a court of law….I’d be screwed.

      • Linda

        I saw on Alyce’s Facebook page where she was commenting on some posts from trial watchers. Of course, many were very angry. She said she took screen prints of the really bad ones & emailed them to the posters employers. It occurred to me that she was a little more versed in electronic communication than she let on. I believe that was an act she was putting on, while on the stand. Sickening!

      • Or maybe she was making the point that contacting THEIR employer with THEIR behavior would be upsetting to them. Good for her I say. I thought we were trying to get Alyce to own her behavior. Perhaps some of the Internet assholes need to own theirs too?

      • Personally I would have removed my facebook and eliminated the impulse for revenge.

      • Sandy

        Samantha is Travis’ sister and is covered under the AZ Victims Bill of Rights. Ms. Laviolette erred in talking to her, because they are not to be talked to by anyone from the defense.

  14. Thank you, Puravida. Impeachment is only done on cross, and simply means you prove the testimony is incorrect or the witness unqualified or biased.

    • Um, whaaaa? You’ve never seen a Daubert hearing during trial? You must get out a lot. Hearings due to an impeachment trial can happen during the trial as well as prior to…

    • puravidacostarica

      The hearing part that TT is referencing is usually in response to a Motion in Limine (which, in layman’s terms, is a motion to preclude or bar evidence). It is possible that Juan advised the court that he is planning on filing some motion to preclude her testimony based on credibility and false testimony. TT is correct that a criminal punishment for perjury would come later; but having an expert accused of perjuring herself on the stand (or misrepresenting her qualifications in, for example, a previous hearing before the judge on her qualifications as an expert) could be grounds for striking her testimony (i.e., instructing the jury to disregard). Sorry if that’s too much legalspeak…

      • So the accusation itself would be enough to get all her testimony tossed, ‘rica? There is some sort of a hearing or other court activity planned for a four hour block on Monday morning. with the HLN girl. Thoughts on what that could be? And the ALV thing is TUESDAY. I am assuming these are two different things. What do you think?

      • puravidacostarica

        I am thinking they are two different things in light of what they reported the judge said — something to the effect of “I don’t care about your personal issues. It’s Monday or Tuesday, your choice.”

      • Sandy

        It relates to the prior Mistrial Motion dated April 7th. Jean C. testified about Juan Martinez’s popularity and the photos taken by the NBC Affiliate here. Jean said it would be a problem IF a juror saw them. At that time Mr. Nurmi stated that he had another witness to this – Her name is Grace Wong and she is an HLN producer. That’s all that is for.

      • Sandy

        That is the one on Monday.

    • puravidacostarica

      This may account for some of the defense’s sourpuss looks, equivalent to “damn, you mean I have to pull another all-nighter researching and responding to HIS motion?? I was planning to use that time to file yet another motion for mistrial!!!” (Or, in Nurmi’s case, “I was planning to use that time to eat another quad-bacon-cheeseburger, lay on the couch, pick my nose and watch The Simpsons, and then sleep it off!”)

      • Weez

        One of the BEST comments I have read on here!!! HAHA! I keep thinking how all of this approaching the bench is perhaps helping Nurmi’s waistline…

      • PJ

        Your post made me laugh. I noticed him as well, so sad for such a young man!
        Can you say heart disease!

  15. steve

    whatever it was it is serious enuf to anger the judge. The def did not look happy about today. During these poceedings the Alexander family have gone into chambers before. Does Sam usually go in alone the other times?did she go alone today?

  16. steve

    whatever it was it is serious enuf to anger the judge. The def did not look happy about today. During these poceedings the Alexander family have gone into chambers before. Does Sam usually go in alone the other times?did she go alone today? is there any difference from today and other times?

  17. Mandie

    Great post and my thoughts exactly…until i just had a brain fart LOL…there was an article in USA Today regarding discussions in Chambers to do with Alyce – so obviously ALYCE has discussed what happened with one of her friends…and should not have done so…

  18. SweetTeaNShade

    So would she, if impeached, not receive her lofty payment from the great state of AZ?? Ruh roh Raylce!!! Oh she will be scrambling this weekend, shaking in her boots.

  19. steve

    alyce in chambers!! That sounds like a 80s hair band

  20. Tamara girl I take my hat off to you and crown you Royal Queen of MultiTasking!!!!! I was watching trial via live stream, tweeting and HLN on mute (graphic commentary on screen is funny) and I was amazed at your tweets in my TL on all sorts of topics and looks like you were putting blogs up and reading comments. I am like damn I am just doing Jodi and yet you picked up on more stuff then I did. I missed the retirement comment so will have to find it on the video put up on youtube. I did catch Martinez doing a lot of what I thought were strange repeats but reading your blog, his whole line of questions makes sense.

    I have also heard n read (news sites not a blog) that there is a question about whether Alyce was admonished for talking to Samantha and that Samantha reported it to Martinez as instructed.

    I would love nothing better than for Alyce (can I call her Vyleolette without violating your rules about names?) to be impeached and based on fraud or outright made up bullshit and lies be forced to pay back every penny.

    Looks like Alyce’s plan to use this trial as her big retirement payday and go out with book deals, movie deals (LMAO) and 6 figure speaking engagements is gonna blow up in her face, not that any of it would have transpired. I mean what other expert brings Daddy and girlfriends to court to watch you lie, tesitfy, lie?

  21. steve

    if tues turns out to be about approaching the family what may she be facing?

  22. Krista

    GENIUS!!! That’s sounds plausible to me!

  23. Also, Q for ‘rica, I would not think it would be illegal for an expert to speak to a family member in the gallery. Unethical? perhaps. A really bad idea in this situation? Sure. But not a legal matter. The judge might admonish the witness to stop doing it, but I don’t see more than that happening. Am I wrong about that (too :) ) ?

    • Mandie

      Apparently in AZ it is against the law for a defense witness or any defense to approach the victim(s) and YES, it is a major offense

      • puravidacostarica

        Do you know whether the statute defines “victim” to include the victim’s family? I could see it readily applicable in a rape or attempted murder, but would certainly be curious to read the statute and I might just Google it! :-)

      • Sandy

        Yes it does

      • JonjOn

        A lawyer on another page has said its only illegal if the ‘victim’ (in this case – Samantha) was approached by the witness to specifically discuss something on behalf of the defense team. It has also been confirmed that the matter of approaching the family has already been handled.

      • Lori Wagner

        AZ has the Victim’s Rights Bill. Victims have certain rights. One of them is to (paraphrase) ” not be intimidated by and member on defense side.” Googled it. :-). It is illegal.

    • puravidacostarica

      Yikes, got me. I just don’t know what the statutes protecting families of victims in Arizona say so I don’t know whether it is “illegal” (i.e, in violation of a statute). It’s certainly improper and perhaps unethical. More disturbing to me is the fact that it is yet another example of LaViolette’s extremely poor judgment. But I think the judge has already admonished LaViolette for that incident, and I’d be REALLY surprised if Tuesday’s hearing had much to do with that. But, again, just my opinion and only worth the Internet space that it’s written upon. :-)

    • Lori Wagner

      AZ has the Victim’s Rights Bill. Victims have certain rights. One of them is to (paraphrase) ” not be intimidated by and member on defense side.” Googled it. :-). It is illegal.

  24. Clob

    Tamara and puravida, those are interesting possibilities.

    Everyone could be totally off base but it is fun to speculate.

    I don’t buy that it has anything to do with Alyce talking to one of the Alexander family members.

    But the whole perjury/impeachment idea does explain why the normally complacent judge seemed kind of ticked off. It’s seemed to me that she has been exceeding careful with her rulings and is giving the defense a lot of latitude (since it’s a possible DP case and rightly so). If she has to make a ruling on perjury/impeachment, it’ll be highly scrutinized at the appellate level. She may be forced to make a really tough call that she doesn’t want to make.

  25. Legallover

    I was also thinking She’s being brought back to be held in contempt or to be impeached. I mean, her testimony was just ridiculous. There is so much against her to file an impeachment motion. And JM is the type, good for him, I hope he does. I work in the court system too and these experts just make everyone sick. First question is always, “how much are you being paid? When is the last time you actually treated a patient? Who’s paying you? Etc” it’s a joke. And LALALand and jodis lawyers have completely insulted the intelligence of the jury, which I am sure they do not appreciate.

  26. Roger

    Great take!!!!!!!!!!! That may explain why judge want to see her on Tue……And she is afraid of getting exposed…

  27. steve

    lavs approaching Samantha was important enuf for JM to take it to chambers when it happened. There arent rules about def witnesses talking with victims families WHILE they are trashing them as bad as they can? They witness tampering rumor is from lav being stalked to the point of anxiety attack. Stalkers not worry about JMs cross

  28. Sars

    I almost wish there wasnt quite so much evidence as to have backed Jodi into a corner and caused her to dump the intruder story. Like Ive said, the way things are dragging along, Im worried the jurors could become jaded. Or that one could be influenced by the power of repetition.

    • Legallover

      I feel like she almost would have had a better shot with that stupid ninja story than with this nonsense! Lol. I really doubt this jury is buying any of it!

  29. WhiteTrashGal

    If Alyce approached a family member of Travis Alexander’s during the period when she was testifying, that family member would be considered an extension of the prosecutor’s office, would she not? It certainly seems so, as the family is asked to chambers during discussions about legal matters. I’m not that clear on Arizona law, but in most trials it’s completely off limits to contact or talk to opposing counsel, other witnesses, etc., during trial, or certainly while you’re still testifying.

    I am not sure what Alyce did–missed that; but she has behaved in a very unprofessional manner as an “expert” witness, IMO. She has testified as if she is somehow aligned with the defense beyond her professional qualifications–personally or with bias, as the jury has even pointed out in their questions. I believe her experience as an expert testifying in criminal trials must be very limited, indeed: her duty is to testify and apply her expertise in her field to the facts of the case, whatever her interpretation of those may be, not to bond with the defense personally.

    In fact, I must be confused, but I could swear I heard Alyce tell the prosecutor she worked from a SECOND set of her notes about this case, which caused her to “misspoken” about Jodi shooting Travis in the closet. Juan looked like he couldn’t believe it: it was a strange thing to say entirely, as she has repeatedly “misspoken” on critical details like this during her testimony. Did she turn THAT 2nd SET over to the prosecutor as well during pre-trial discovery? If not, she just shot herself in the foot again.

    Sorry to go on, but this witness is a low blow for our justice system. If this is what passes for expert testimony, load your guns and grab your knives and cameras–it’s open season on cheating boyfriends who–SHOCKED!–use willing women for sex!

    • Hey there @WTG! Pleased to see you! …. and I’m in agreement with you when you commented about her biased and personal alignment with the defense. She showed a more personal regard for the defendent by apologizing and also supplying books and if I’m not mistaken a magazine subscription to the defendent, much the same as dr samuels. Shouldn’t a professional be highly aware of appropriate boundaries?? Having a career in the medical field I was always aware of my limits and practiced discretion and integrity at all times. If in doubt, I would always, always err on the side of caution.

      • Darlene

        Is thre any proof that Jodi did not send those emails, texts from Travis’s phone to her own phone. Because we know she was able to get into his accounts. I don’t trust her.

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Thank you! I’ve wondered that a hundred times. Without Travis to tell us, what do we know about them? I’m not that informed on many details of this case, but surely the investigation would have nailed down where both were during the texting…I hope. If not, why would the judge have let the messages in?

        Good question, Darlene.

      • tito gabilondo

        i was just wandering did Travis know he was being recorded when he was talking to Jodi and doesn’t he need to give permission for them to use the recordings in court?

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Hey, cherry! Always good to see you.

        And in my last post I rudely neglected to mention your excellent blog, Tamara–well done!

        About these experts, here’s what I’m now wondering: if Dr. Fog and Alyce LaViolin sent reading materials to Jodi, did those MATERIALS in fact coincide or suggest to Jodi what her talking points should be for a PTSD and Domestic Violence defense? Maybe that’s why Juan Martinez was so upset over these “experts” doing this. Sounds to me like they could have been coaching Jodi. Were the titles of those materials ever mentioned in court? Anybody know?

      • The titles of those publications would indeed be interesting to know. I think dr samuels may have said something to the effect that they were self help books but I wouldn’t swear to that

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Thanks. But if a “self-help” book delineates the symptoms of PTSD and defines it in detail, wouldn’t that be like COACHING Jodi about what to say to him so he could come up with that diagnosis? He did give it to her after their first meeting, if memory serves. Like Juan, I find it extremely upsetting for a “pro” to do something questionable in so many ways. Also. Dr. Samuels changed HIS answer about this a few days later in his testimony, saying he did it to “create a rapport” so Jodi would open up to him or some such nonsense. Again looked like the defense was coaching him.

      • It appears to be coaching to me. No psychologist has ever given me a book but has made a few suggestions. Presenting her with it would more likely insure that she read it and thus apply the principles. dr la Vee did seem to be leading her in a certain direction when she proposed the idea that ja used sex to calm him down and …. drat … the comment/question that la Vee said was ja’s answer that was written under it. darn it …. what was it?!

      • John aka Dane Bramage

        That was my question the other day too. What were the 4 books? We know what the magazine was used for…

    • alessa

      Haha! Love this comment!

  30. LC

    Tamara, FYI The following has been posted by C*** S****

    I do not acknowledge that person…. sorry.

    EDITED BY TT

  31. khintx

    Hmmmm. Most states have adopted a Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights which is why Sam is always included in the in-chamber conferences and so forth. This Bill is what gives them the right to make victim impact statements. And there is usually a designated Victim’s Assitance Coordinator that works with the victim’s family (or the victim) to make sure their rights are not violated and that they are protected, for instance, from being accosted in court by the the offender(s), or their relatives or witnesses testifying on behalf of the offender.

    So if Alyce did approach Travis’ sister that is a big fat no no.

    I think Juan has already completely anihalated Alyce as far as her credibility goes.
    My gut says that she’s also in trouble for speaking or attempting to speak to the family.

    kh

    • WhiteTrashGal

      Thanks for the info, KHINTX. Alyce is so unprofessional, it’s hard to imagine the jury isn’t as disgusted with her as many of us are. Their questions indicate they are.

      Alyce’s entire testimony has been stubbornly combative and so fantastically full of bull, I can’t imagine the jury doesn’t see it. Ex: To say Jodi lying for years about how she killed Travis doesn’t make a liar because of the circumstances is so absurd, I couldn’t believe my ears. She certainly called Travis a liar numerous times, but he lied about having an ongoing sexual relationship with Jodi because of the restrictions of his religion and his own highly conflicted desires. Hiding this sick relationship had to be very stressful to him–so guess he wasn’t a liar, either, ALYCE! Unless, of course, ALYCE is a liar–under oath, no less. No wonder she loves Jodi–two birds of a feather.

      And I kept wondering when she was under re-direct with Wilmott, when Alyce was spitting out “Yes” and “No” as fast as Wilmott could lead her into those one word answers Juan couldn’t get her to give no matter how simply he broke down the questions, if the jury noticed the marked difference in Alyce: she made it clear she wasn’t there to be unbiased, but to say anything the defense wanted and to battle the prosecution, THE TRUTH BE DAMNED!

      I can’t see how she helped the defense at all, unless there’s someone on the jury just like her who doesn’t want Jodi to be guilty, no matter what the facts of the case are. Of course, as has often been said, that’s the defense’s hope.

      But the judge…oh, that judge! Why she lets this carnival go on endlessly, I have no idea. When I hear “Objection! Asked and answered!” I think, Yeah, ABOUT 100 TIMES NOW! Wake up, Judge, or your jury pool is going to all fall out!

      Sorry, rant off.

  32. Pateman

    A “motion to impeach” does not exist. The issue of whether or not a witness has been impeached is for the jury to decide. At this point there’s nothing that can be done to rehabilitate her credibility.

    • Murphy

      Pateman is right. The way “impeachment” is often delineated in statute form can be confusing for a layperson (and a lot of attorneys). Think of impeachment as an integrated part of cross-examination, rather than a separate motion. As noted in the original post and amongst commenters, it is clear that JM has been systematically referring to the “methods” of impeachment laid out in the statute. For instance, TT rightly points out that JM attacked her qualifications by getting ALV to admit she cannot administer tests, that she lacks a PhD, etc… He questioned her extensively on bias, regarding any possible feelings she may have developed for JA….Inconsistency has been shown in that ALV’s notes do not always match her testimony…Finally, although a stretch, deficiency of character (usually shown through prior criminal convictions and/or admitted deception on the stand) was at least alluded to in her many admissions that she “misspoke” (in that some may interpret the word “misspoke” to mean a form of deliberate deception). Ultimately, it is up to the jury (the trier of fact) to determine how well ALV was impeached, and what weight to give portions or all of her testimony.
      A few other observations…I agree with Puravida in that JM may be offering a motion in limine regarding parts of ALV’s testimony, but, in that case, I would find it highly unusual that (at least primarily) the portions of her testimony he would like excluded were not elucidated in open court after the conclusion of testimony today. It is not an unusual motion to make, and is rarely veiled in the type of secrecy we saw at the end of court today. It is also worth noting that, although her testimony was heavily impeached (imho), I don’t see a motion to exclude being successful based on her given testimony. Far more likely, as Puravida also alluded to, I would think that the motion in limine may be based on some as-yet-unknown conduct of ALV during the trial outside of her testimony. Perhaps this is where ALV’s rumored illegal contact with the victim’s family last Thursday comes in. Perhaps JM has discovered other inappropriate contact between ALV and other witnesses. Perhaps JM has discovered evidence of other court rules being broken. There is a wide variety of possibilities. In any case, if indeed Judge Stephens does find some misconduct on ALV’s part, there are also many remedies the court may impose (striking some or all of ALV’s testimony, an in-court admonition, a statement to the jury describing the misconduct.)
      Finally, it is worth noting that before an expert testifies, there is a finding by the court (either beforehand in-camera or at the very beginning of direct) whether the witness shall be designated an expert. ALV has already been designated an expert by the court, but any subsequent finding by the court that ALV lied about her qualifications may jeopardize this standing (and her testimony may be struck). However, given the very broad definition of “expert” in the Arizona Rules of Evidence, I don’t think ALV will lose her expert status. But we can always hope!
      I hope all this made sense – really interesting thread here with insightful remarks and questions from TT and commenters…

      • Thanks Murphy. That was very helpful. Is it okay with you if I bold some of your content (without changing any wording of course) I don’t want people to gloss over it because of length. :)

      • Murphy

        That’s fine. I hope my comments helped. I love your posts on the trial – it is all everyone I know talks about. Ok, now I am in a Jodi Arias-related shame spiral…

      • Lisa Gorman

        But JM while cross examining her asked the court to have her impeached.

      • Chaim

        Very interesting weblog. Question: It has been observed that Ms. LaViolette was having dinner with the defense. Is this behavior sanctioned by the court?

      • What on earth is the problem with Alyce eating dinner with the defense team? She is their witness.

      • Murphy

        In my experience, the whole dinner issue is not a big deal. Perhaps the issue here is that they are eating together in public. Unless the judge has imposed certain restrictions, there certainly isn’t anything legally wrong with it, but perhaps it doesn’t seem appropriate (maybe because we as a public see witnesses/testimony as sacrosanct). If I were Willmott, I would probably choose to confer with ALV in private, because it is probably more appropriate and it would stir up less controversy.

      • brenda

        if that dinner was the evening after the judge and counsel went over jury questions, then perhaps the problem is not them having dinner but was Jennifer tempted to share and prep her for the next mornings continuation of jury questions

      • WhiteTrashGal

        I noticed after certain issues came up between Martinez and Alyce where he had her up against the ropes because Alyce didn’t know previous testimony in court which contradicted her assessments, she’d return the next court day or so and suddenly she had a complete, precise answer and explanation which obviously came straight from the defense’s/Jodi’s version of events. The “shot in the closet” and “knife on the table” are two examples–”mispoken”. It has been so obvious at times, I wondered if having the defense coach Alyce to give specific answers and explanations during her cross is acceptable by the court? This is why the dining in public is a bad idea: the appearance of impropriety AT LEAST is apparent.

        And I am still convinced that on Friday Alyce told Juan she had a second set of notes she worked from which Martinez HAS NOT SEEN. Someone said she meant Dr. Samuels’ notes, but Juan would have seen those, right? That sounded very much like the defense hadn’t turned over all her notes to the prosecution during discovery, which would be egregious misconduct on the part of the defense if they knew it and meant to conceal evidence.

      • Darcy Reid

        If this was a prosecution witness, who had willingly lied on the stand,this would be grounds for a mistrial.In the case of MIchael Peterson,who was convicted of killing his wife,his coviction was just overturned
        due to the testimony of an expert witness, who falsely represented himself in terms of credentials, as well as presenting misleading testimony.

  33. I believe your motion is pretty close to accurate..I would want to know if it could also include making contact with the family? And I consider her statement today about her criminal cases for men, perjury!

    • WhiteTrashGal

      Agreed, Debi.

      Here’s what’s funny about that: remember how she made a big deal over that question, took a LOOOOONG pause while moving her head up and down and looking like she was thinking hard…and then she said AT LEAST 2? Ha! Juan nailed her on that LIE. But of course, just because she lied UNDER OATH doesn’t mean she’s a LIAR!

  34. emn

    he has done a great job at impeaching her testimony continually…perjury charges are needed , maybe this way “expert”witnesses will think twice before lying under oath for money

  35. emn

    I had the pleasure of reading this post in another blog. BRAVO.

    “You know, I would have a lot more sympathy for Ms. LaViolette had she not behaved so abominably during her cross examination (by) Prosecutor Martinez.

    I’m 62, relatively close to her in terms of age, and regard her smirking, smart-alecky passive-aggressive, elusive, antagonistic, cat-and-mouse, purposely obstructive and wholly non-responsive answers to Mr. Martinez as SHAMEFULLY unprofessional, bias-laced, and unethical. This woman boasts of all the work she’s done with Domestic Violence offenders, then acts as though she’s soooo intimidated and “confused” by Mr. Martinez’s firm and forceful approach – which she, herself, skillfully endeavored at every turn to exacerbate.

    You’re a big girl, Ms. LaViolette… you knew full well that this homicide was carried out in a horrendously brutal manner, that Ms. Arias’ trial would be VERY high profile, and that the prosecutorial effort involved would resultantly be every bit as vigorous as Ms. Arias’ defense. Jodi Arias is no Snow White, and playing the part of Alyce in Wonderland and exchanging smiles and signals with Ms. Arias and her Attorneys undermines and has made a mockery of you, your profession, and all TRUE victims of Domestic Violence – male AND female – everywhere. You are being paid 300.00 per hour to utilize your IMPARTIAL “expertise” in a search for TRUTH. Yet you steadfastly obstructed that search in any way possible via game-playing, verbal dueling, being evasive, and even having the AUDACITY to pronounce that the Prosecutor needed a Time Out. You behaved not like a professional and an impartial Victim Advocate… instead, you behaved like a completely biased, brainwashed, petulant child. As is true of so many who have fallen under Ms. Arias’ spell throughout her lifespan, you have been lured into her web, exploited, manipulated, ridden hard, and put away wet. And soon enough you’ll find yourself discarded, – your career, reputation, and credibility forever irreparably marred – without as much as a backward glance on she and her minions’ part. I’m saddened beyond measure at the suffering you are enduring, but this is what comes of selling your soul to the devil; my dear. In this case, he’s come in a deceptively “battered” womanly form – but he’ll nevertheless collect his due. In full. And then some.”

    • LauraE

      I like how you think!

    • barb

      Absolutely! The best summary of this situation and fraud that I’ve read on the web. Thank you.

    • mhoosh

      emn – that was so well summarized – bravo on capturing and relaying it all so well!!

    • Adam Friedman

      Excellent post. I agree completely. I am the husband of a wife who became completely taken with the Arias trial. Every time I came in from work it would be on. Then I began to watch and I too was hooked. I am disgusted with Jody but I have become so interested in the trial because of the actions of the Defense. Which, to me, are indefensible. Thanks Tamara for the BEST blog on this trial and here is to my new hero, Juan M, who is riveting, professional and intense. thanks

    • Danny

      emn, that was excellent! Glad you posted that.

    • Ro

      B R A V O!!!!! Extremely well thought out and written.

  36. gailconlon

    I disagree! To begin with when asked how many times she testified she said it was 1 or 2 times….she wasn’t sure. Martinez needs to be disbarred for his treatment of witnesses. He’s a woman hater and he abuses people thinking he has that right. He wouldn’t be doing that in a court in Canada, he’d be sitting in a jail cell if he even attempted to carry on like that in our courts. He’s a bully!

    • emn

      the correct answer is zero, she lied and she knew she lied… she just thought it was a “little white lie” lol

    • puravidacostarica

      Thank God for America’s criminal justice system, then. That’s why all our criminals try to run to Canada. #justsayin

      • Nancy MacNevin

        I also live in Canada and TOTALLY agree with your statement. Unfortunately, up here things are so “politically correct” that we tend to have what I feel is an “Injustice system” which is fondly referred to in our media as “Hug-A-Thug”!!! Throughout my entire life, I’ve always had great love and admiration for the U.S.A. and it’s people.
        (p.s. — thanks, but we don’t need any more criminals up here — we’ve already got enough.)

      • You might have “Hug a Thug” but we allow them to have twitter accounts and sell their art while they are in jail on trial. Beat that Canada. :P

    • puravidacostarica

      Okay, I’ll play one more time. And, puhleeze, how can one say — if you are indeed an “expert” and has testified as one at trial (can you honestly tell me that you cannot remember how many times you have testified at trial if it’s less than — say, in LaViolette’s case — less than a dozen times, whether it was one or two trials on behalf of men? I call bullshit. She is, in a word, a fraud.

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Bam! Well done, counselor. You made your case: GUILTY verdict for Alyce on the charge of LYING under oath!

    • puravidacostarica

      Sorry, TT, it might just be the Chinese food and beverages talkin’ ;-)

    • alessa

      He should be disbarred? Was anything he did unethical?

      He is a woman-hater? He has prosecuted plenty of men in his long career.

      Sure–he’s aggressive. The nature of the crime incites a certain atmosphere of outrage in this court room. She didn’t slip the guy a pill or shoot him once, she cruelly mutilated him. If being aggressive in questioning is considered “abusing,” we would never really be able to get answers out of smug witnesses who like to play word games and toy with semantics instead of clearly and effectively stating their expert opinions. I’m not sure why every single witness on Jodi’s team has seemed so over-the-top personally defiant about their views—if you have someone offering you differing evidence or perspective, an unbiased, logical witness and professional would be open to considering it, instead of doggedly persisting that their views are right, no matter what powerful conflicting evidence has been presented. Methinks it’s their own consciences trying to block out any guilt of what they’re testifying for…

    • sheila kelley

      @gailconlon
      I am a Canadian and have worked in courts for many years
      Some of our Crown Attorneys are just as passionate as JM…..and a few even worse
      JM is doing his job…he is not abully…he is getting justice for TA and his family
      So keep our system out of this my dear for you are so very very wrong in your statement

      • JimL

        Gail, I am British and have been a Profession Witness in The High Court. You are absolutely correct. Many prosecutors are much much worse than JM. And, there is no way that I was allowed to qualify a yes/no answer. EVER !!

      • Karen Sandlie

        In Canadian courts as well as British courts the players all where wigs and robes, how intimidating is that? In Canada there is no death penalty and getting life means 25 years. I think Gail you should worry if the likes of Jodi Arias finds her way to a town near you. I am a Canadian who has been living in the USA for 16 years – in Arizona for the past three. I am more that grateful to have Juan Martinez as one of our prosecutors – he is one of the best in the country and is in no way a woman hating bully.

    • But she was, in fact SURE. upon further questioning (within seconds of her original
      1-2 answer) she owned up to the truth that it was zero. However she still continued to hedge and try to justify her lie by saying something to the effect that she had ‘written a report’ which in no way is the same as testifying. She knew EXACTLY how many times she had testified. That would have been a pretty big deal and she remembered, she just chose to give a dishonest answer, thus negating all her testimony in my mind.

      • Cherrylipgloss, did you hear her say “Mr Martinez it was 29 years ago (that she testified for a man)? She testified for a man THREE DECADES ago. Proves even further, she does not take kindly to men, one male in her 30 yrs of a career, LOL. Crazy!

      • Emily H.

        …Writing a report on another’s behalf can CERTAINLY be considered testimony. I am no LaViolette fan, but you are incorrect. Sorry

      • Lisa Gorman

        No it is NOT considered testimony. The opposing counsel must be able to question the expert. This is criminal court!

      • yes I did….and only one in 30 years….guessing she would have recalled that

      • I didn’t say zero…it was Mz LaV herself who said zero

      • Emily H.

        I’m sorry but you are incorrect.

      • Emily H.

        see “affidavit”

      • anniebannanie

        YOU are the one who is incorrect! If you listened to all of Mr Martinez questions, you would know that he nailed her to the wall by admitting that she “wrote a report”. She did NOT testify in criminal court.

      • emily you are very confusing. toward the bottom of this thread you adamantly state that she lied under oath, yet you say that writing a report is the same as testimony.

      • Emily

        To clarify; I’m sure Alyce knew that JM was NOT referring to testimony in the form of an affidavit, so I feel as though she was being untruthful in that regard. I still don’t think her answer could be considered full-blown perjury. I could be wrong, but don’t think so. All we have to do is wait and see. If Arizona had a case for perjury, they would almost certainly pursue it, given that the result would strike all her testimony in the case.

    • you are so incorrect – Mr Martinez is a truth finder – if an expert lies they are then qualified as an expert liar – she needs to include this in her cv

    • I am also Canadian, and would be VERY happy to have someone like Mr.Martinez prosecuting if my family experienced a similar tragedy to the Alexanders’. He is briliant IMHO. He almost never refers to notes, except to ensure he gets things like dates right. Every detail of this trial is in his head, and when ALV (or any hostile witness, like Dr Fog) slips up, he’s like a computer, pointing out that error at lightning speed!! I’ve never seen anything like it. REgardless of the outcome of the trial (1st Degree LWOP, or Death Penalty), Travis Alexanders family will know that the prosecutor wore their outrage like his armour, and fought for justice with everything he had.

    • Donna Fraser

      I am from Canada and have been to court/trials quite a few times and I will say that I have seen much passion and drama many times.. Juan Martinez is VERY within his boundaries and is doing a fabulous job at getting the TRUTH from these people who have concocted a blasphemy of the US judicial system with their lies, biasis and prejudices based on what the most famous liar in history has told them.
      Good job, Juan!

    • NOTfog lady

      To GAILCONLON: I am thankful that you can not sit on this jury.
      Juan Martinez is the kind of prosecutor I would want if my loved one was brutally murdered in cold blood. He is the voice of Travis Alexander and as a taxpayer, I applaud him!!! About being a woman hater……………he treats all SUSPECT witnesses with equal passion – he does not single out women!!!! As a woman I find your statement sexist and not well thought out. The fact that he is so passionate does not make him a bully……………..he’s after the truth and when someone is playing games like the “expert” is, he is totally justified to go after him or her. ,

    • Kathy

      Gail: I also am from Canada and work in law enforcement, you could not be more wrong about JM! He is doing and has done exactly as he should, he needs to be aggressive that is his job, especially for the family! I have worked with many Crown Attorneys who are aggressive and do an amazing job and then there are others not as aggressive but do an equally good job, each have their own style and it’s nothing personal it’s just their job and if I were a member of a victims family I would want a prosecutor just like JM, we need more of him out there!

  37. Kali

    Since she is a defense witness what does this mean for them ??? Is there anyway a mistrial can come from her impeachment ?

  38. LauraE

    Thank you for the well-written article. I guess we will have to see if it is to the advantage to the prosecution to proceed on such an action or not. I don’t know about legal things, I just know I agree 100% with the prosecutor on everything and he’s doing a fantastic job, in my opinion.

  39. Carol Koessel

    I think one reason AV might be meeting next week (again!) is that she was “caught” speaking to the victim’s family…. a big no-no. I think that may impeach her as well as the blatant lies she has told and her misrepresenting herself and CV’s more than once.

  40. barb

    Brilliant. Thank you for putting this together. Hopefully, this is just what the matter is about on Tuesday. I can not tell you how many times watching this trial that I wondered why this fraud wasn’t held for perjury and fraud, even contempt of court for her hostility and transparent bias and inadequate credentials. Her testimony needs to be withdrawn, and her fee contract canceled!

    • oh, barb, she just thinks she is so ‘cute’ with her “are you angry at me, mr martinez?” and “you need a time out, mr martinez”…..I find her anything but. She is belligerent and obnoxious with a bad haircut. mzzz laviolette….you are not amusing.

      • WhiteTrashGal

        OMG! “…a bad haircut….” LOL I’ve stared at that hair and wondered about it so many times!

  41. That was my first thought when I heard she was returning for “another issue” next Tuesday.

  42. SU

    If anyone here can answer this question….Since it appears Jodi is making many thousands of dollars selling her artwork, how is it she still qualifies for free counsel? Doesn’t there have to be some on-going proof / validation to continue getting free attorneys, especially when she is so openly selling her art on-line for hundreds and thousands of dollars. Thanks, Group!

    • harley

      i had wondered this myself and had checked and since the money is not going to jodi directly (the person who is selling her art is a woman in yreka and has the same name as jodi’s little sisters drug counselor – js) but to a third party then it isn’t showing as income for jodi – however if she is convicted they can suspend jodi from recieving any monies related to selling of her art work, also if the family sues for wrongful death and win, then that would guaranty she could not receive any money because the family could get a lean and any money made from any thing from jodi – even if an outside person is receiving it – would go directly to the money owed from the judgement

    • I’ve read several references to JA selling artwork for “hundreds of thousands of dollars”, and I feel compelled to give my 2 cents. On her site, jodiariasart.com, she had several items depicted with the price she received. A quick calculation reveals that IF these items ACTUALLY SOLD, the total is less than $9000! Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a drop in the bucket! This amount would no nothing to overturn her need for a public defender.

      Also, at LEAST her mother, and probably her father have had to be in Phoenix since at least January to attend the trial. Assuming that a house was rented “for the duration”, they are paying additional living expenses of maintaining two homes! It’s my understanding that money from the sale of her art is used for their expenses, not JAs canteen account.

      I will try to not appear snarky here, but JAs artwork has limited financial value. It isn’t very good, contrary to JAs inflated opinion, and the “value” will CERTAINLY decrease in the REMOTE possibility she gets Man 1. (The ONLY way it would INCREASE in value is if she gets the DP. Think J W Gacy.) additionally, she’s only producing colored pencil drawings, not paintings, another problem for collectors. (Some might buy paintings from a prolific serial killer like Gacy, but killing a boyfriend because he said you are a skank isn’t in the same league. I’m guessing buyers are family friends who can afford to help the parents, not because the art is collectible! IMHO:

      Look for the civil trial finding her guilty…and the Alexander Family taking anything of value from her, al la Kim Goldman!)

  43. amy

    Best blog you’ve ever written!

  44. Via

    I feel I MUST comment…Forty years ago, I called my father..”Daddy, JT just beat me up!” I sobbed. “Why? What did YOU do to DESERVE it?” He asked…I stood in the phone booth, bruised, lip swollen and bleeding, my neck and back aching from being kicked by a pair of size 11s. He was 6’3″ and weighed 180…I was 5’1″ and barely weighed 110.

    When I returned home, I heard “Aw, honey, you know I love you. And I’m sorry that sometimes you do things that make me so mad. It won’t happen again.” Until the NEXT time it happened…and the time after that, and the time after that…one day he beat his brother to a pulp because his brother stopped him strangling me. He wasn’t ever sorry that he did these things…he was sorry that *I* made him do these things. I lived like that’s for seven years…until one morning when he was late for work, and promised me a beating when he returned home…ten minutes after he left the house, I put my meager belongings into the used car that I bought…and that he didn’t know about…and I drove off…never to return.

    Years passed, and I grew up a little…and attended therapy a LOT. I came to understand that I didn’t need to be a bathmat. I learned to have grown up relationships that used verbal communication, not violence as the means to a happy marriage. Did I, by my own actions, instigate episodes of DV? Yes, I was an immature 19 year old, and I am sure I “pushed some buttons”. DV doesn’t happen in a test tube, it involves two personalities, and often “game playing”. There is a country song that one line is “sometimes we fight just so we can make up”, and I think that may have been a part of our formula.

    We both came from “troubled” childhoods…his father shot his mother in the head before committing suicide. Luckily, Dad was a poor shot when he aimed at Mom, and he only grazed her head…unfortunately, it’s harder to miss, when your mouth is wrapped around the barrel. Children learn from their parents the basics of marriage.

    My Dad was in the navy, so, he wasn’t part of my childhood. He passed through, on occasion, coming or going to Vietnam.

    Societal values have changed since the late 60′s and early 70′s, thank goodness! ALV and I are contemporaries, I, too, will confess to being a little “old fashioned”! I would be reluctant to discuss with a client their specific bedroom activities. I’m ashamed to admit the things I’ve learned from Ms. Arias! (I had no idea what a “Brazilian” was, but the Urban Dictionary assisted me!

    Where I feel that she failed herself, the defense and the justice system was despite her years of DV experience, she showed a basic naivety when dealing with what I suspect is a manipulative sociopath. In spite of reviewing “many, many” text messages, IMs and emails, she didn’t remember to pack up some basic skepticism when she traveled to Arizona. Whether believing every word given by Ms. Arias was because of the big Final Paycheck, a boost for her book, or just being a “nice little old lady”, we will never know. She has worked with DV for so long that she places folks in the spots they belong. Blue squares in blue holes, Pink circles in pink holes…and everything on the Continuium works! TA-DAH!!!

    Her other failure is the same disease I get occasionally….Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome. She was SO frightened that Mr. Martinez was going to pull a trick on her, that she forgot that she COULD just say “yes” or “no”. She forgot to put herself FIRST. In trying to do the very best job for Ms. Arias, she let Mr. Martinez “rattle her cage”. She was TRYING to think “two questions ahead” of the Prosecutor; therefore, she gave information that wasn’t relevant. At times, I cringed for her. I tried WILLING the correct answers to her, to no avail…not because I believe Ms. Arias was a “victim” of DV, but because I felt empathy for her. I think that she would be a very nice lady to chat with for a while. She appeared to be an inexperienced “expert” questioned by a VERY experienced Prosecutor, who takes his Responsibility VERY seriously!

    As far as Ms. Arias…I hope she NEVER gets out of jail! I have an unmarried son in his mid-30s who always seems to find the “crazy” ones!

    This trial, and Ms Arias’ actions are TRAGIC. The reason we (viewers) cannot tear ourselves away is that everyone of us has a dad, brother, uncle in our family. It’s easy for us to relate to the feelings of loss and emptyness. In as much as we see ourselves in a New Millenium Society, our basic American Puritanism is “shocked” to listen to the numerous “kinky” sexual escapades tossed about so easily within the Hallowed Walls of our Justice System. Mr. Alexander claimed to be “a virgin”; I have a son…so, if TA WASN’T a virgin, I wouldn’t have been surprised; but THAT was HIS business, not mine! (And how do we KNOW that, prior to Ms Arias, he WASN’T?).

    I’m sure Travis was no angel…but he CERTAINLY didn’t deserve having his memory and his family thrashed by Arias’ self-serving lies. She has been surrounded by folks who were either not up to her mental agility, or they just didn’t CARE enough to take action when she needed to learn responsibility, discipline and accepting things you can’t change.

    Arias’ attorneys, prior to the trial, would have accepted LWOP, but the Prosecutor felt the DP was warranted. As much as I detest the DP, I can’t say that he is wrong. Isn’t that the same sentence Arias delivered to Travis? And not by a nice shot that sends you nicely to dreamland…it’s OBVIOUS from the crime scene that he fought valiantly to save his own life. She was cold hearted enough to drag him into the shower…and let his body begin to decompose. She didn’t even have enough compassion to make an anonymous call to 911.

    Travis wrote “You are the worst thing that has ever happened to me.”
    Unfortunately, he was right…

    She said “Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me!”
    I pray she is wrong.

    Forgive my rant.

    • No need to apologize for the rant. You have every right to post your story. I agree with you that ALV seemed to always try thinking 10 steps ahead of JM; trying to think of where he was going with his line of questioning, instead of just answering the Y or N which would have been so much simpler. WIth her long hesitations, and constant reminders to the prosecutor that she “take(s) things in context, Mr Martinez”, she portrays herself as someone who is patronizing, shifty, and just plain silly. When she told JM that if he were in one of her groups, she would tell him he needs a time out. I just about choked! She isn’t doing the defense any favours by being so stubborn with JM.

      • CFK

        I agree completely that ALV really messed up trying to think 10 steps ahead of JM. She admitted it several times by saying, “I’m trying to figure out where you are going with this question” as her excuse as to why she refused to simply answer yes or no. The reason it was easy for her to answer yes or no to the defense is because they pre-planned the questions/responses ahead of time much like a script for a movie or rehearsing for the stage.

        As ALV seemed stunned by the jury questions of her obvious body language, cues & smiling with Jodi & defense she showed total unawareness of how she came across to the jury and everyone else watching. She proved that non-verbal communication is 90% without even knowing it by her own actions. I think her ego wouldn’t allow it.

      • puravidacostarica

        Great post! And spot on about the 90% non-oral communication. (Using “oral” not to be sexually suggestive, but because the proper definition of verbal encompasses both written and oral communication — i.e., in words — whereas, oral is non-written.)

      • puravidacostarica

        And your use of “verbal” is probably more reflective of Alyce’s testimony. I think she was trying to say that 90% of communication is without the use of words (i.e., body language, facial expressions, etc.). But maybe I’m wrong.

    • Bullypups

      I am new to this site. I’ve been reading another group for the past couple of weeks and have to say that the group here are sooo much more “professional” in their comments.
      I’m so happy to have found this site!!!

      Anyway just wanted to say that I agree with everything you said except … The only deal JA agreed to was 2nd degree murder with a 12 year sentence and Mr Martinez said no way. She then said she was going to destroy Travis’ reputation during trial as well as other people. She also said that it may reck marriages. Basically threatening, which amounts to trying to blackmail the prosecution. I’m sure JM spoke to the family and they said GO GET HER!!!
      JM

    • T Phord

      <3 (((( via )))) <3 ( I'm older than you–it was a different world. :( )

  45. I feel I MUST comment…Forty years ago, I called my father..”Daddy, JT just beat me up!” I sobbed. “Why? What did YOU do to DESERVE it?” He asked…I stood in the phone booth, bruised, lip swollen and bleeding, my neck and back aching from being kicked by a pair of size 11s. He was 6’3″ and weighed 180…I was 5’1″ and barely weighed 110.

    When I returned home, I heard “Aw, honey, you know I love you. And I’m sorry that sometimes you do things that make me so mad. It won’t happen again.” Until the NEXT time it happened…and the time after that, and the time after that…one day he beat his brother to a pulp because his brother stopped him strangling me. He wasn’t ever sorry that he did these things…he was sorry that *I* made him do these things. I lived like that’s for seven years…until one morning when he was late for work, and promised me a beating when he returned home…ten minutes after he left the house, I put my meager belongings into the used car that I bought…and that he didn’t know about…and I drove off…never to return.

    Years passed, and I grew up a little…and attended therapy a LOT. I came to understand that I didn’t need to be a bathmat. I learned to have grown up relationships that used verbal communication, not violence as the means to a happy marriage. Did I, by my own actions, instigate episodes of DV? Yes, I was an immature 19 year old, and I am sure I “pushed some buttons”. DV doesn’t happen in a test tube, it involves two personalities, and often “game playing”. There is a country song that one line is “sometimes we fight just so we can make up”, and I think that may have been a part of our formula.

    We both came from “troubled” childhoods…his father shot his mother in the head before committing suicide. Luckily, Dad was a poor shot when he aimed at Mom, and he only grazed her head…unfortunately, it’s harder to miss, when your mouth is wrapped around the barrel. Children learn from their parents the basics of marriage.

    My Dad was in the navy, so, he wasn’t part of my childhood. He passed through, on occasion, coming or going to Vietnam.

    Societal values have changed since the late 60′s and early 70′s, thank goodness! ALV and I are contemporaries, I, too, will confess to being a little “old fashioned”! I would be reluctant to discuss with a client their specific bedroom activities. I’m ashamed to admit the things I’ve learned from Ms. Arias! (I had no idea what a “Brazilian” was, but the Urban Dictionary assisted me!

    Where I feel that she failed herself, the defense and the justice system was despite her years of DV experience, she showed a basic naivety when dealing with what I suspect is a manipulative sociopath. In spite of reviewing “many, many” text messages, IMs and emails, she didn’t remember to pack up some basic skepticism when she traveled to Arizona. Whether believing every word given by Ms. Arias was because of the big Final Paycheck, a boost for her book, or just being a “nice little old lady”, we will never know. She has worked with DV for so long that she places folks in the spots they belong. Blue squares in blue holes, Pink circles in pink holes…and everything on the Continuium works! TA-DAH!!!

    Her other failure is the same disease I get occasionally….Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome. She was SO frightened that Mr. Martinez was going to pull a trick on her, that she forgot that she COULD just say “yes” or “no”. She forgot to put herself FIRST. In trying to do the very best job for Ms. Arias, she let Mr. Martinez “rattle her cage”. She was TRYING to think “two questions ahead” of the Prosecutor; therefore, she gave information that wasn’t relevant. At times, I cringed for her. I tried WILLING the correct answers to her, to no avail…not because I believe Ms. Arias was a “victim” of DV, but because I felt empathy for her. I think that she would be a very nice lady to chat with for a while. She appeared to be an inexperienced “expert” questioned by a VERY experienced Prosecutor, who takes his Responsibility VERY seriously!

    As far as Ms. Arias…I hope she NEVER gets out of jail! I have an unmarried son in his mid-30s who always seems to find the “crazy” ones!

    This trial, and Ms Arias’ actions are TRAGIC. The reason we (viewers) cannot tear ourselves away is that everyone of us has a dad, brother, uncle in our family. It’s easy for us to relate to the feelings of loss and emptyness. In as much as we see ourselves in a New Millenium Society, our basic American Puritanism is “shocked” to listen to the numerous “kinky” sexual escapades tossed about so easily within the Hallowed Walls of our Justice System. Mr. Alexander claimed to be “a virgin”; I have a son…so, if TA WASN’T a virgin, I wouldn’t have been surprised; but THAT was HIS business, not mine! (And how do we KNOW that, prior to Ms Arias, he WASN’T?).

    I’m sure Travis was no angel…but he CERTAINLY didn’t deserve having his memory and his family thrashed by Arias’ self-serving lies. She has been surrounded by folks who were either not up to her mental agility, or they just didn’t CARE enough to take action when she needed to learn responsibility, discipline and accepting things you can’t change.

    Arias’ attorneys, prior to the trial, would have accepted LWOP, but the Prosecutor felt the DP was warranted. As much as I detest the DP, I can’t say that he is wrong. Isn’t that the same sentence Arias delivered to Travis? And not by a nice shot that sends you nicely to dreamland…it’s OBVIOUS from the crime scene that he fought valiantly to save his own life. She was cold hearted enough to drag him into the shower…and let his body begin to decompose. She didn’t even have enough compassion to make an anonymous call to 911.

    Travis wrote “You are the worst thing that has ever happened to me.”
    Unfortunately, he was right…

    She said “Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me!”
    I pray she is wrong.

    Forgive my rant.

    • Joan

      I am sorry for your experience. Not having lived it, I agree with you. I believe Ms LaViolette has truly helped people. But, this was not the stage for her. I also believe she got taken in by the lies of a sociopath. I don’t believe Travis was an angel, but he sure didn’t deserve the death sentence he recieved. Thank you for your eloquent expression based on your horrid true life experiences.

      • Robert Edwards

        Any help Miss Laviolette may have given battered women is offset by her continual insistence that only men are violent. Pitty help the men who are forced into her batterers program for men. She must just love telling these men how horrible they are. Interesting to note she does not run Any programs for female batterers. Oh, right, I forgot, there is no such thing as an abusive women in Laviolette’s world or the whole domestic violence industry.

    • Justobserving

      Wow, what a rant! Beautifully written and conceived!!! I love your story and thank you for being so open with it. You have said a lot and it is all so very relevant! Thank you!!!

    • Beautifully written, thank you for sharing a piece of your soul.

  46. JustCurious

    @TT ~ Finding your Blog has been like “Finding a Goldmine of Info;” far more credible, that AL’s “expert testimony”! TY for posting this!! ~ I think Tuesday is about Perjury. ~ I think in the beginning of her testimony, JM showed a bit of patience & willingness to let a few inabilities to answer a yes no question w/more info than requested; but as it went on & on, w/her flat out refusal, to just answer the question; her bias began to show itself!Then approaching TA’s family, was seen & brought to JM’s attention, reportedly by HLN. The Mon morning thing is possibly w/the HLN Producer who saw this; it was supposedly handled in Chambers, but this was not the end of Mz. LaViolette’s “mispoken” errors. It was so obvious she had never testified in a criminal proceeding! ~ I think Tuesday has been brought about by her unending bias toward JA & changing testimony midstream – The closet issue, where the knife was, her credentials, etc.~ “Enough is Enough!” she pushed it too far!! JA’s face today – PRICELESS!!

  47. INCORRECT = Jinkasaurus

    CORRECT = Jean Casarez
    `

  48. Good reasoning in this blog. Much better than a lot of the panels on US tv. it will be interesting to see what happens. I have to say that like Canada we here in the UK also have some very robust barristers who are just as passionate as Juan. I hope the Alexander family get justice and find piece. It makes me sick to see them having to listen to Travis being carved up again. Very good points made here. greetings to you all from the Old Country.

  49. Lydia

    Good I hope she gets impeached. Just a small correction. It’s Jean Casarez. Lol

  50. Although I read a few, I have only blogged one website and that is for my G. Shepherd – so I’m delighted to say the insights on the JA trial here are so refreshing. It’s like your bloggers are reading my mind. I wanted to say the second ALV paused and looked to the ceiling before she started her jury answer, re: how many men she testified for in a criminal trial – I yelped out loud… (“almost” felt sorry for her). How can you “not’ remember 1 – or 2 trials? It was the first question out of JM’s mouth – before his feet hit the ground. Immediately thought… OMG, That’s It – this testimony’s toast ! Used to work with attorneys – Murphy and enm’s posts are spot on. One question ? Anyone hear a HLN attorney immediately say the Judge instructed the jury to “also have their cell phones on for Monday?” Could this be an indication the ALV matter will ultimately be brought before open court? My guess is it may indicate a Motion in Limine. You know it’s been a bad day in court when JA’s hair goes from shiny and swingy to dull and limp ! ~ Great, great discussions on TT! Here, here ! Since I stumbled onto you, I’m hooked !

  51. lorraine

    ok here is one i think has been looked over. monday ms wong from hln is to be there. i think it has something to do with coaching laviolette when she is on the stand. you cannot do that and i wondered why no one has mentioned seeing defense nodding answers with her head and eye movements. hln has caught this all along. martinez finally asked her why she kept looking to the left side of the room. it is against the rules to do that. and it was obvious that she was getting coached by the female defense and hln has it all on tape

    • I think the Wong thing is a separate issue. She is part of the current mistrial motion. Two issues. One brought by defense (mistrial motion) one bought by prosecution (perjury charge).

    • NOTfog lady

      Lorraine: While Ms LaViolette may be in deep dirty water over lying to the jury, she may also be in some hot water for addressing the Alexander family in court. That too was caught by people in the courtroom.
      The defense mistrials motions are, in my opinion, only good for the record. They are hogwash!!!!!

  52. Steamroller

    When you take the oath to tell the truth, how do you sit there in the witness box and lie, and not get get busted by the court? JM caught her in a flat out lie and nothing happened.

  53. JustCurious

    I too, heard the Judge ask the juror’s to keep their cellphones on, for possibly coming in Monday afternoon; and this must have something to do with the monday morning issue…

    I am hooked on this blog too, now that I found it…. I was ranting at the tv as I heard ALV’s testimony. I have found it to be very “INCREDULOUS!”I am thrilled to find an intelligent, informative & thought provoking blog. I can’t wait till next week, when hopefully we will find out what this is all about??

    Does anyone know what can happen if Tuesday morning is in fact a Motion in Limine, and ALV is found guilty of perjury? Is it just sanctions, such as a fine? Or, could their be greater consequesnces to ALV, and this is possibly what has caused her to go to the emergency room; as she saw her career go up in flames? Is ALV, trying to help lay the groundwork for the defense’s claim of “Prosecutorial Misconduct”? Does anyone else think ALV may be trying to claim she has suffered from harm, “abuse” due to JM’s “volume & tone of voice” in the courtroom?? As she dodged the questions, refused a straight answer, etc. Wasn’t it ALV’s choice to answer the question’s as she did? Misleading the prosecutor, the judge and the jury with her Credential’s? lie and lie and lie?? This may be part of why the judge may have sounded a little harsh on Friday, when ALV said “she might not be able to come to court on Tuesday either, because she may have to go for tests!” This could be why the judge cut her off midstream and asked her “not to tell her about her personal problems!” It sounded to me as though there was a hint of a silent …”you brought this on yourself, Mz. LaViolette!”

    An expert can’t “not remember”, like Jodi; and expect that kind of “behavior” to be acceptable in criminal court? Once, maybe; but repetetively – never! Or fudge her answer’s – evading the obvious, refusing to state the truth! Stopping short of her never ending deflecting answer’s! Or, stretch the truth – (exagerating her abilities), or leave things out, to make it sound better; like Jodi!- – -Oh, that’s right!!They were only “little white lies!”

    • quite a theory you’ve come up with and I can’t say it isn’t possible. She got herself in this mess and is an embarassment to herself, her profession and expert witnesses as well. She is likely feeling the repercussions of her shame and looking for anyone or anything to blame for her lack of professionalism. She has made a mockery of her testimony.

    • It would be unusual to block further testimony because she made some technical mistakes ( see post below.) It would be extremely unusual for her not to return or attempt to withdraw as a witness.

    • I think if ALV was looking at a perjury charge – usually they don’t play out in front of the jury. Hearings must be set. Most charges are not pursued unless egregious. (if so, courts would be packed till the end of time!) The fact is that expert testimony is deemed “in their opinion.” Even when attorneys are found in contempt – it usually results in ($$) sanctions or complaints to the Bar, et el; C.Anthony. I believe if there isn’t evidence of deliberate “lying” – that dog probably won’t hunt. I do believe JM could render a motion of admonishment and it in fact would be brought before the jury so the records would reflect testimony stricken and disregarded or a jury instruction. After I did a little research, found Motion In Limine is much more serious for the prosecution (appeals!) – but not out of JM’s remedies. Don’t forget, I bet Jodi will be going out for “ineffectual counsel” to overturn – if she’s convicted !!

  54. susan

    As I read all of your comments since last night, it is beginning to make sense why Judge Stephens was sort of nasty to Alyce when she told her that she MUST return to court either Monday or Tuesday. The tone in the judge’s voice when she said, “Don’t tell me about your personal life” when ALV began to explain about a test she may have to have done was one of “You must have me mixed up with someone who gives a shiz” I wonder if this is a purjury hearing?????? Maybe it’s about those two phantom men whom she testified for in criminal cases yet can’t remember their names. Susan
    P.S. Fantastic work, Tamara

  55. Robert Edwards

    Miss Laviolette’s outrageous behaviour may bring to light the abuses that occur within the domestic violence industry. Yes it is an industry. Millions of dollars fund Battered Women’s Groups and millions of dollars pay for the stupid, vile, men hating Womyn’s Studies Programs at the universities. Laviolette book, priced at approx. $40.00 was never meant for the hands of actual abuse victims, it was priced for, and will be bought by universities to be used in their womyn’s studies programs where they teach young impressionable women to become victims as well as brainwash them that all men are potential rapists or abusers and no woman is capable of abuse unless pushed by a man. Sick philosophy coming from men-hating, radical feminists and lesbians.

    I noticed three universities in my area have this vile women’s book in their libraries. I will be forwarding to them the over 500 negative reviews this trash has received on Amazom.com and ask that it be removed from their libraries. Laviolette spews hate speech.

    • Ann

      Mr. Edwards, I agree that La Violette has done a grave disservice with her testimony to the many legitimate abuse victims out there. As far as her book is concerned, many of the reviews have been based on people’s anger at her testimony and attitude during the trial rather than being an actual review of the book. I do not think that Amazon is the appropriate forum for people to vent; however, perhaps they feel it is the only or most convenient forum they have. As a librarian I can tell you that all libraries have collection policies as well as policies to deal with complaints involving resources they would like to have removed. Resources (books, DVDs, maps, realia, etc.) must meet the criteria to be entered into the collection as well as meet criteria to be removed. I can pretty much assure you that La Violette’s book will not be removed (nor should it) based on people’s anger with her testimony in this case.

      • Robert Edwards

        Thanks for the reply, Ana, but would a library keep a book that was blatantly misogonistic? I doub’t it so why would a library keep a book written by a women who relies on 1960s-1970s domestic violence information and statistics.

        Miss LaViolette is aware of recent stats that indicate that women are equally aggressive and abusive as men. Due to most men being stronger women receive more bruises, etc. She is so caught up in her man-hating that she will never change her stance. She has made her bread and butter off the backs of women.

        LaViolette’s book is full of misandristic b.s. and is misleading. Do libraries keep books that represent fact but are in fact fantasies made up by a group of disgruntled men hating radical feminists and lesbians? (Note: Not all feminists are men hateres nor are all lesbians but they are the ones who seem to gravitate to the domestic violence industry.

        I know of no library, and I use many, many libraries, that would consider allowing a misogonistic book on their shelves. Why the double standard?

      • Ann

        What you have to remember is that Freedom of Speech, protected by our Constitution, applies to library collections. Whether or not a book (or any other form of media) is added to or kept in a collection depends upon whether it meets the criteria of that institution’s collection policy. If it does, it will be kept even if some of the opinions expressed within are unpopular. A collection policy for a university or public library will be much broader due to the population it serves than a high school, middle school or elementary school. Collection policies are formulated based on the population being served. For school libraries curriculum must be considered, but you also must consider items for personal interest reading, and those must be appropriate for the age level being served. Again, since universities and public libraries serve patrons of all ages, the criteria are much, much broader.

        If you are truly interested in pursuing your request to have the book removed, you need to contact the collection librarian of each institution and get a copy of their collection policy. Every policy I have ever seen also includes a “Request for Reconsideration” procedure. Typically, you have to fill out paperwork indicating what you want to have removed and why. I will tell you that during my 30+ years of experience, I have seen only one or two items removed. It is a very controversial area due to the Freedom of Speech issue.

      • Robert Edwards

        Thanks, Ann, for the great information.

        I know the ALA has some strange stands on certain issues. I worked in a public library when Madonna’s Sex book came out (the one with her simulating beastiality, etc. The library decided to have the book in the collection but patrons had to ask library staff for the book. As per ALA (or so we are told) any person of any age was permitted to view the book.

        I really don’t have a desire to see Miss Violette’s book pulled. She has done enough damage to herself. Any person or group silly enough to waste $40 on this radical feminist, man-hating author deserve to be bilked.

        BTW I actually went to one of the local university libraries. Miss Laviolette’s book has not be borrowed since 2001 (I don’t think they weed the collection). The copy I saw had pages ripped out, foul language written on it.

        LIbrarians–Watch your collections, LaViolette haters may hit your stacks and deface your LaViolette collection.

    • Stewbee

      Well said. She is making a mockery out of battered woman’s causes.She is like the Woman who cried “Wolf”. If she can believe Jodi and Snow White are battered woman, than what man stands a chance against her biased testimony. She is a fraud and an unqualified witness from henceforth.

    • CCMA398

      Let me preface by saying, I’m a 28yo female lol I took an intro to wmns studies class in college to fill a gen ed req, and it was all that was available that semester. I was not looking forward to it. However, half-way through the semester, I decided to include wmns studies as a second major (microbiology being the other). I’m no dummy, not easily influenced by others, and definitely NOT a lesbian. Wmns studies is not the stereotype you are perpetuating. It has a focus on wmns rights, ie: the right to vote, equal pay, etc. No bra burning or man-hating. I was raised by what you could call, ‘a man’s man’ and worked for a time (still do occasionally) for a public safety manufacturer. Meaning, i attend trade shows as an exhibitor, including the NRA show. I also do not find JM to be abusive or intimidating, as he is doing his job as a prosecutor. I don’t know how he keeps his cool with this infuriating witness. You may want to actually google wmns studies, at the very least, before you get your panties in a twist over the crazy schools, with their man-hating, lesbian, woe-is-me, agendas.

      • Robert Edwards

        CCMA398 Womyms studies is exactly the stereotype I am perpetuating. You say it has a focus on women’s rights? Do you actually believe that men and women have different rights in 2013? If anything I see Miss Arias being treated with kid gloves compared to any man who would find himself in Miss Arias’ situation. Hell, I would bet you a Mary Daly book that he would have been on death row years ago.

        You say womyn’s studies deals with women’s right to vote (I thought women have the right to vote. Are you saying your courses say something different?

        Equal pay. Do you think that if Mrs. Wilmott and Mr. Nurmi have the same educational background and the same amount of years on the job that Mr. Nurmi is making more money? B.S. If women make less money for the same job it is because of life decisions they make. (I.E. leaving work to raise children) Don’t know about the bra-burning but do know about the man-hating.

        I have been familiar with womyn’s studies programs for over 25 years – no need for me to google it. Umn I don’t wear panties but to each his/her own.

      • Daryl Morris

        Not sure what womym are, but you do realize the poster is talking about the history of women’s right to vote, don’t you? Have you not seen the multitude of studies that show women’s pay is lower than a man’s in many occupations, even today! Your comments sound a bit misogynistic and uninformed.

      • Robert Edwards

        Daryl, name me one occupation that women are payed less than men? Teachers? Doctor’s, lawyers, min wage earners?

        No I am not a misogynist. Do you know the meaning of the word?.

  56. Here is my overview:
    Problems with Expert Witness Testimony of Alyce LaViolette

    1. An expert should not be arguing with the attorney, or making remarks not related to the questions- do not ask the attorney questions that make it look as if you are leaving the expert role: She stated something like this:
    “If you were in my group, you would need a time out.”

    2. When you make a smart alecky remark, or tell a joke the audience and jurors better laugh- they didn’t when she referenced: “When Harry met Sally.” Furthermore, the jurors might not even get the meaning.

    3. The witness sought way too much clarification- this gives the appearance of evasiveness.

    4. The witness should not talk to the parties, especially the victim’s family. An expert should generally not be smiling in a murder case. The victim’s sister could be called as an impeachment witness in the rebuttal. It would be quite striking if the testimony shows that Ms. LaViolette in fact approached and have a (brief) conversation the victim’s family.

    5. She may have gone beyond the scope of her practice, especially when stating that the MPPI-2 could be rather easily faked. This witness is not a forensic psychologist.

    6. The current expert witness, Alyce LaViolette read other expert reports where the defendant stated the shooting was in the closet. However, the expert witness incorrectly wrote that down in her report. She stated she misspoke when telling the prosecutor that in her interview with him. Thus, not only did she simply copy what others said, but made a subsequent mistake in a criminal case interview. It seems she never did or wanted to correct the mistake.

    • Robert Edwards

      Very well said.

    • Lisa Gorman

      Excellent Blog but I still have a question. This so called expert is NOT a licensed health professional, therefore she can NOT counsel or diagnosis. She can not put herself out to the public as such a professional nor can she testify in a court stating she is an expert. ALV opinion is no different than an UNLICENSED person. If she has put herself out to be this then criminal charges can be brought against her in a criminal court. And btw I have almost 43 yrs in health professional investigation with the government. IMHO!

      • Sigh. Alyce is a licensed therapist.

      • Lisa Gorman

        In which state? I looked under both AZ and CA she was licensed under a psychologist in the 80′s, but his license was revoked, therefore hers was cancelled. Since she does NOT hold a doctorate she must be supervised by one that holds that degree.

      • For the love of GAWD. She is a licensed therapist in California. She got her license in 1992 I believe. I really should have it memorized as many times as people have come screeching in here to share the big news that she is “not licensed”. I should have just deleted the post about it before it eve hit the board. Lesson learned.

      • Lisa Gorman

        I went for a major search of the records and she has been licensed as a marriage and family therapist only. I believe she did overstep her licensure by testifying to JA state of mind. That is a diagnosis which as a therapist she can not do. This is why JM brought up she could not give test nor interpret them. Thanks tamara!

      • Ms. LaViolette is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) as shown on the California BBS website. Under the laws of the State of California, she is a licensed psychotherapist. The title psychotherapist is restricted to MFTs, MSWs, Psychologists, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses. When a MFT intern (MFTI) finishes their internship, the MFTI license is cancelled.

        It is another question as to whether she is qualified to make a psychodiagnosis.

      • I’ve bolded your comment, PPS hoping the masses will read it. Meanwhile, I have trashed another FOUR people coming in guns blazing with the news that “Alyce has no license!” They tend to come in, drop what they think is a BOMBSHELL and dash about spouting things or just leave. It’s tiresome explaining things over and over for the past month or so. I think I will just copy your comment into some sort of file I can just paste over and over. Wish I had done that over a month ago. :)

        Meanwhile, there are plenty of places to criticize Ms. LaViolette if that is the mission. This is not one. Thanks.

      • Lisa Gorman

        I am so sorry Tamara being new I did not realize this. Also, having worked for the govt investigating health professionals this is the first area I look at. I also look at the laws and rules and regulations governing the profession.

    • If it even was a mistake (re: where the shooting occurred)…I’m thinking she may have just gotten an earlier version of Jodi’s “story” about the murder.

  57. A perjury charge typically occurs after the trial is over. But it doesn’t seem likely in this case. A technical error would not lead to a perjury charge. That is, whether an expert wrote a report or gave actual testimony probably is not enough to reach the level of perjury. Also if she stated there was no contact with victims’ family, it could be argued that this was not a forensic contact. It certainly seems to be inappropriate.

    However, impeachment is another story.
    It would be a bold move to bring the victim’s sister to the stand in rebuttal and if ask one question: were you approached by or did you communicate with the Ms. LaViolette?

    • harley

      you are right – any type of perjury charged that could be brought, are done after the trial concludes – but as far as impeachment, alyce approaching sam could not cause that, it was done outside the jury and it has to do w/ the victim rights law that says a victim has the right to never be harrassed by any member of the defense team. alyce could be held in contempt of court though, but that would be a separate issue from the jodi criminal case

    • harley

      also as stated above there isn’t an impeachment hearing per say during a criminal hearing, impeachment is done thru cross examination, if if proven it can lead to jury instructions that would give the jury the option of not considering her testimony in deliberations, and Daubert Hearing are done pretrial to exclude an expert or part of the experts testimony. also i doubt that martinez would ever try to get her testimony stricken, or stop her from any further testimony as this can open a whole can of worms that could possibly cause a mistrial, or an appeal. plus i think by the juror questions this defense witness has been very helpful to the prosecution

  58. Patti Ray

    Execellent information. Alyce thought she was smarter than Juan just like Jodi did. The wrath of Juan is on the horizon.

    • George Ferenzi

      Patti I love it when they underestimate some one like Juan. Remember the old TV series Columbo? He was always under estimated by some so called “genius” who thought they could out smart Columbo but found out their perfect murder was not so perfect.

  59. Emily H.

    Laviolette DID lie under oath, but I highly doubt she will be charged with anything. After all, submitting a written statement on another’s behalf can certainly be considered testimony. All LaViolette has to say is that she believed she was giving truthful testimony. Like I said, she won’t be charged w/ anything…as much as she might need to be. Just the way it is….sorry

    • Bob

      I believe it may have something to do with her(Alyce Laviolette) approaching the family during a court break. A definite no no. Not sure though.

    • Lisa Gorman

      Emily, I don’t believe a statement submitted to court is the same as giving testimony. The defense and prosecution MUST be able to ask the person questions under oath in order for it to fly.

  60. Babsdeaner

    I’m thoroughly hooked on this trial. In Canada we do not televise trials – hence the actions of our Crown Attorneys aren’t public knowledge. One can only trust the reporting of those who attend major trials, such as that of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, that you may have heard anout.

    Juan Martinez is doing a fabulous job of exposing the biases and incompetence of the defence “experts”. I’m surprised they could find anyone to craft a “defence” of the defendant considering the overwhelming evidence of premeditation that is well documented. I guess money talks.

    • SweetTea

      I still think about that case, I know they served time but Karla living her life now as another person, new name, etc. still gets to me. She will always be a calculating killer on my eyes. Imagine what her parents must think if they are still alive and her sister is not.

  61. JimL

    Here is a perspective.
    Nobody likes Alyce LaViolett.
    But, she has suffered and will continue to suffer.
    In the months and years to come, I believe, that three names will be remembered from this trial; TA (Certainly), JA (Though we made to be reminded), and AL.
    Two of the three will be deceased. The survivor will be ridiculed for the rest of her life.
    AL’s taking of the case was foolish. Everything else that she did was beyond stupidity and easily ridiculed.
    Dr Samuels should remember AL in his will.
    God bless the Alexander Family and pray for the continuing objectivity of the Jurors.

      • mhoosh

        JimL – “Dr Samuels should remember AL in his will” – that is hilarious! Love the perspective!

    • you know, jim, you make a lot of sense. The sad part is that initially on direct I had a lot of respect for AL. I thought, this could be bad….she is likable, credible and her testimony is succint. And then Juan stepped up to the plate and she took on a completely different demeanor. Her posture changed, her tone, her facial expressions and most importantly her responses. She totally blew it by being evasive, non-responsive, combative and even demeaning in her replies. I became frustrated and consequently scrutinized her reason for being so difficult. In the end I concluded that her testimony was uninformative and biased. As her testimony draws to an end I find her dishonest and therefore what she testified to holds no value. Sad to waste so much time and money on this so called professional.

    • Stewbee

      I got somebody who will be remembered from this trial. The most important one of all…. Non other than my main man Mr. Juan Martinez. This guy should have his own TV show. I have man love for JM.

      • JimL

        Stewbee, JM will be famous (Currently Famous) in any future scenario. He is not done yet. Not only with this trial but with whatever is brought before him. JM for president ?

      • Stewbee

        Maybe not president but secretary of defense. the man takes no BS I love it. He’s just what we need,

      • anniebannanie

        Mr Martinez is responsible for Wendi Andriano currently sitting on AZ death row. It was a horrific murder, and was featured on the TV show “Snapped”. I’m hoping that ja will be his second success.

  62. Lisa Gorman

    Did anyone notice or could I be wrong when JM asked ALV about her relationships with men she mentioned a son BUT never mentioned a husband or a past husband. Did I hear that right?

    • yes she has mentioned her children but when she refers to her own relationships she is gender non specific

      • Robert Edwards

        I believe Miss LaViolette has a son and daughter and according to others has a female lover. The lover, I’ve heard does lesbian counselling (?)

    • anniebannanie

      She replied that she had a wonderful father and a wonderful son. No mention of husband or former husband.

      • Lisa Gorman

        Exactly annie no mention I thought! Isn’t that strange especially since the question was pointed referring only to males. Makes one wonder! I would think if she was married or had been or had a personal relationship she would mention that.

      • anniebannanie

        I know she is licensed as a psychotherapist, but IMO, she should have an honorary doctorate in misandry!

    • Evelyn Kirbach

      What guy would stick with her?

  63. Why didn’t I find your blog sooner? These posts are music to my ears! Although christian, nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing A.L. fall… Oh, I hope Juan Martínez gets her! She should be held either in contempt or impeached.

    Bad News: we’re going to have Juan Martínez – withdrawal – symptoms when this trial is over. I jump whenever he starts to cross! It’s almost as if he’s “defending us all” and not just Travis.

    I, simply, adore this relentless brilliant pit bull!!!

    • anniebannanie

      I, too, LOVE JM. He is SO sharp and LaV. is just no match for him. When she told him about needing a “time out” – I thought I would fall off my chair! I am obsessed with this trial. If ja had shot Travis once, or stabbed him, that’s one thing, but she slaughtered that young man like an animal taken to an abattoir. I believe she plotted her revenge, planned it carefully (NOT carefully enough) then proceeded to lie, lie, lie to everyone. I am generally not in favor of the death penalty, but believe there are some cases where an exception should be made; this case is one of those.

      • Death. If she doesn’t repent, she will burn in hell for what she did. Did you notice when she said how she felt ashamed? She didn’t said regretful. Not once!

      • anniebannanie

        Have you noticed how she said Travis “passed away”, and the female defense lawyer did, too? They act like Travis died from some incurable disease, or a car wreck, instead of being slaughtered at the hands of the defendant.

      • Yes! It’s shameless. I wish an epic fall to all three women: JA, AL and JW.

      • Lisa Gorman

        She has never apologized or said she was sorry as far as I can tell. She is definitely a piece of work. I have read on another blog that features artist and they are all upset because the drawings her mother is listing as originals on ebay are all tracings. According to them she has traced other’s work of art.

      • Now, about those drawings: it doesn’t surprise me at all. People shouldn’t be buying neither from Jodie or Casey Anthony. It infuriates me.

      • Oops, sorry for the typo! I meant: neither from Jodie nor from Casey.

      • Lisa Gorman

        yes, annie i have noticed that. an attorney explained that saying killed or murdered would not help the defense they want 2nd degree or an acquittal.

    • I’m going to have JM withdrawl symptoms after the trial. He is such a dynamic man. I believe he represents the outrage of the entire public at having to listen to this circus. Of course he’s like a bull coming out of the gate. He’s as pissed off as we all are!

    • anniebannanie

      Never mind, Valentina, there’s a doozie of a trial coming in October. Trial of the wife of the young man who was gunned down at his children’s school, and his wife’s boss/lover was convicted; now the grieving widow goes on trial. I have to admit, I’ve watched a couple of TV trials, but have never been obsessed as I am with ja trial. I think it’s because it’s so sad, and ja is such a swine (with apologies to swines everywhere.)

      • Couldn’t agree more! We’re all sitting at the edge of our seats because:

        1. The crime was gruesome and heinous
        2. JA is a sarcastic and diabolically heartless individual
        3. Juan Martínez is brilliant, energetic and relentless!

  64. anniebannanie

    On HLN a couple nights ago, the attorney panel answered a call-in question, asking if ja could make $$ from book/movie; the answer was a resounding “NO”. They pointed out, that she can make $$ from artwork being sold on Ebay, and if the Alexander family sues ja in civil court for wrongful death after the trial is over, that $$ can be diverted to them. I’m sure the family isn’t motivated by $$, but I hope that after the trial they will decide that this woman should not make one dime profit from the slaughter of their brother.

  65. Babsdeaner

    What do you make of the fact LaViolette told Martinez, in their initial interview, that Jodi her she shot Travis in the closet and found the knife beside the bed? That sounds awfully specific to me for her to claim she “misspoke”. Do you think she was coached by the defence attorneys to change her notes? She claims she doesn’t know what Jodi testified to under oath. Very suspicious!

    • Babsdeaner

      Should have said “Jodi told her”. :)

    • WhiteTrashGal

      Yes, it appears to the layperson that Alyce was coached during her time testifying by the defense lawyers/Jodi. She has on more than one occasion changed her answer on a later day about a specific issue with JM using info that she previously did not have because she could not watch witnesses testify. I feel sure at least some of the jurors noticed.

  66. John aka Dane Bramage

    Hello all, fascinating information on this page. I have been engaged an active dialog regarding this issue. I was alarmed with her answer to the Jurors’ questions especially on cross. Below is the Official Arizona legal definition of perjury. See if you catch what I caught and know she is possibly in deep fecal matter:

    13-2701. Definitions
    1. “Material” means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction. Whether a statement is material in any given factual situation is a question of law.
    2. “Statement” means any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the representation.
    3. “Sworn statement” means any statement knowingly given under oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated, including a notarized statement whether or not given in connection with an official proceeding.
    13-2702. Perjury; classification

    A. A person commits perjury by making either:
    1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false.
    2. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.
    B. Perjury is a class 4 felony.
    13-2703. False swearing; classification
    A. A person commits false swearing by making a false sworn statement, believing it to be false.
    B. False swearing is a class 6 felony.

    13-2705. Perjury by inconsistent statements
    When a person has made inconsistent statements under oath, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single charge alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.

    13-2706. Limitation on defenses
    A. It is no defense to a prosecution under this chapter that:
    1. The statement was inadmissible under the rules of evidence; or
    2. The oath or affirmation was taken or administered in an irregular manner; or
    3. The defendant mistakenly believed the false statement to be immaterial.
    B. The provisions of law which declare that evidence obtained upon examination of a person as a witness cannot be received against him in a criminal proceeding do not forbid giving such evidence against the person upon any proceedings founded upon a charge of perjury committed in such examination.
    13-2707. Proof of guilt
    Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for perjury or false swearing and it shall not be necessary that proof be made by a particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

    Also The Defendant may be in jeopardy of the same JMO. Thanks JTF

    • Babsdeaner

      Looks like 13-2705 could apply. We’ll see Tuesday – if Ms. V. makes it to court. :)

      • Violetta

        I agree. How can this be a domestic violence case when they were never “domestic”??? They never lived together…she just stayed over occasionally. They were just “friends with benefits” basically.

      • Daryl Morris

        Exactly. They didn’t live together, she wasn’t dependent on him financially, they didn’t have kids, he wasn’t attempting to see her, and she had to drive 1000 miles if she wanted to see him! The “domestic violence” term does not apply.

    • NOTfog lady

      Thanks so much for the research!!!! I won’t be surprised if this is “the issue”.
      But on another point – when was Miss LaViolette ever going to distinguish the difference between (possible) verbal/emotional abuse and domestic VIOLENCE ??? Every woman knows the difference and it’s important to this case. I’m not convinced he didn’t have justification for what he said to her given her sexual manipulation but I will never believe that he was physically abusive.

      • John aka Dane Bramage

        Hi- The issue is indeed the contact with victim’s family member. I’m sure while she’s in Chambers she will get a not-so-surprise…..

  67. Lisa Gorman

    ALV is a licensed marriage and family therapist. Very limited since she only holds a master. I love how that one blogger stated ALV should put on her big girl panties and suck it up with all the negative things being said and done to her. lol

  68. Alyce is a disgrace! She killed Travis all over again with her never ending- biased testimony. She has been an unprofessional, disrespectful and hostile witness towards the prosecution. Not to mention a condescending little liar. She had the nerve of inverting Travis’ and Jodie’s personalities and actions.

    She should be either held in contempt or impeached.

    … and, Alyce? One last thing, dear: start baking pies! Your current profession is OVER.

    • Lisa Gorman

      I have had this on my mind, I wondered how many lives she has destroyed when she has testified in family court.

      • Since her current career is OVER, Alyce could start baking, don’t you think? In fact, she should call Snow White and ask for her apple pie recipe! Taking in consideration how acquainted those two are, it shouldn’t be a problem!

      • Lisa Gorman

        lol your killing me over here! the only thing you left out is baking with her spiderman panties!

      • Hahahaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

      • mhoosh

        How many men lost their children in custody cases because of ALV’s inability to see both sides of a case…

    • myrtle mintz

      I cant believe the judge allowed laviolette to act like that on the stand. she showed no respect for judge martinez or court.judge should have charged her with contemp of court and started charging her a 100 everytime she could not answer yes or no also laviolettes friends showed no respect for a murder trial theway they kept laughing out loud when they thought laviolette got one on martinez

  69. Jackindy

    I wonder if Alyce would like for her wonderful son to date Jodi?

  70. Kathy

    Wow! Perfectly stated! Love your blog, great work!

  71. Kathy

    Oh btw, is anyone sick of the female defence attorney and her buddy-buddy relationship with her client? Makes me gag when I see them cozy up….Ugh so sickening, looking forward to seeing what happens with ALV on Tuesday!

    • Watching JA and JW whisper into each others hair, they look like a couple of teenagers in high school gossiping about people. It makes me sick the way that they are trying to make JA look like an ugly child. I especially hate when she pulls half her hair back like a five year old. What’s next, a big pink bow in her hair? Maybe braces on her teeth? And have you noticed that everything she wears is too big, she has never ONCE worn a skirt or dress, and those pants she wears are miles too big on her. It’s like they are trying to de-sex her, to get away from all the blond bombshell images when she was with Travis.

      • maureen merry

        Nancy I feel the same way it is unprofessional of JW to be so friendly with her client.
        I have noticed in some court cases like this they do dress their clients to suit the circumstances like in (the Anthony case) to me this is very deceptive.

      • I chat with my attorney all the time in court waiting for out call. She invited me to lunch during a break in all the waiting but I had other things to do. She’s very smart and fun to be around. Why shouldn’t we talk? Oh and I wrote tons of notes to her at the table while Sheree Whitfield was perjuring herself on the stand. Defense attorneys are people we hire to work for us. They are not there to support anyone else.

      • immature and distracting to judge, jury and attorneys. notes would be more appropriate

      • A pink bow and braces!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL :D

      • Kathy

        Ya and maybe we can add those stylettos from the top of the blog too, Id like a pair of those!

    • Violetta

      yes, very much. it is so unprofessional…never have seen an attorney behave this way in a criminal case, never. Willmott sounded nervous, looked nervous and very unconfident on Friday. She is whiny, she sighs all the time, her voice doesn’t instill confidence, and I think the judge is irritated with her. She is in over her head and was unqualified to defend this killer. But they probably had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an attorney for JA. I find it hilarious JA wanted to defend herself. If she were smart, she would have never NEVER taken the stand.

  72. Lisa Gorman

    I wonder if JW will be taken to task since she was responsible for this two defense experts as to preparing them to take the stand?

  73. puravidacostarica

    Okay, I know it’s a long shot, but I’m still hoping that Juan has proof as to who received the magazines with Jodi’s secret coded messages — and knows Alyce lied in response to a juror question about it! Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

    • I don’t think it is a secret who Jodi was writing. The note was something like. “what you said the other day really fucked up my story. Talk to me before going on TV again.” So it was whoever was interviewed.

      I can’t swear to this. But this is my recollection. I don’t have my notes with me. Or my glasses. Can I go get my glasses? I didn’t know there would be reading involved. Anyway. It’s possible “I misspoken”. Hang on gotta pee.

    • Violetta

      was it Bryan Carr? haven’t heard from him recently…it’s like he disappeared into thin air.

  74. anniebannanie

    When Mr Martinez asked LaV. if she believed Travis was very afraid of ja, she said “no”. Keeping that in mind, here is part of my DREAM closing argument that I’m trying to send to Mr. Martinez via ESP *-*

    “Ms. LaV. the defense witness, does not believe that Mr. Alexander was NOT very afraid of ja.”

    Then, holding a blown-up 4x4ft of that gruesome photo of Travis’ bloated body in that shower, asks the jury:

    “Members of the jury, what do YOU think”?

  75. Gloria

    Tamara you make absolute sense about the impeachment. Great observations by you and Juan m. No objection here. The lord is guiding Juan m. He is Travis voice for justice. She must be charged with first degree murder / premeditated / and put to death. We cannot allow Ms. Arias to make a mockery out of butchering a human being.

  76. Jean

    Recently found your blog, and I’m really excited by all the comments. I’ll add my 2cents.

    IMHO, in order to face very high calibre questioning, Alyce LaViolette has just gone native. My bet is that she didn’t have to defend a thesis to a panel drawn from multiple disciplines and didn’t know how to prepare or what to expect. It’s one thing to be able to respond to questions for which you’ve rehearsed the answers. Another to improvise. So JW needed to reassure Alyce by basically testifying, by feeding her leading questions (surprised that was allowed). JW kept leaping in with objections and sidebars to distract and buy time for ALV to work out an answer. In addition, ALV had her own cheerleading team in the gallery, seated behind Miss Arias, et al.

    Skipping to another topic, I wonder if you’ve already discussed the strong possibility that the ninja story was very close to what actually happened. That she showed up unannounced to “make up”, that she threatened Travis with a gun in the shower in order to take her trophy pictures while he went along to buy time to find a way out, that it was not the camera that she dropped but her grandparents’ gun. In fact, I’m sure I heard Miss Arias begin to say that she dropped the gun, then correct herself to say camera, in her direct testimony. I’m also sure that JW made the same mistake when asking questions of her regarding the timeline. If that’s true, then doesn’t this prove she has a highly selective form of amnesia?

    Thanks for the great space.

    • Lisa Leick

      Has anyone else noticed that all the pics in the shower have Travis’s eyes closed…except the one where he looks freaked out? JA spent alot of time “explaining” how she and Travis would pause to “look” at the pics as they went, and that the eyes-opened pic was for a “Calvin Klein” look. My theory is that she had Travis keep his eyes closed…pose…including the arms across the chest pic which is a death in a casket pose…and had him open his eyes at the moment she was going to shoot him. He probably knocked the camera out of her hand trying to defend himself. She tries to shoot him again, but the gun jams (she used this in the ninja story). She runs out of the room, Travis thinks she’s gone and stands over the sink, coughing up blood. JA returns with a knife she grabbed from his kitchen, and the struggle to live begins. Is there any time stamps that proved when each pic was deleted? This would proved whether she deleted all the pics at one time after the killing. My two-cents:)

  77. John aka Dane Bramage

    I personally think she was giving TA one last shot at putting her back on the Cancun trip and when she didn’t get it she went with Plan A. After seeing her in pigtails and a Superman T-Shirt, I believe that she connected with TA that the intensity sent her back to that first love at 16 years old. She was NOT going to be rejected. The Cancun trip was her “In” to reel him back into a relationship like they had originally had. I believe that SHE introduced HIM to the kjink and it clicked with some of his family of origin issues and he learned how to mood-alter with the sex creating and internal conflict with his moral code aka Cognitive Dissonance. The recording and pictures were to blackmail him to stay with her or if he got serious with Mimi or someone like her JA would send the pictures and play the recording and tell her that “this was the other night when he was out of town” or some lie like that to run them off so his only alternative was to be with her until she could find a “better (more $$$) catch” then SHE would dump HIM.

    Her first BF (you know first loves- but it wasn’t B Juarez’s – however) dumped her and it devastated her and the stalker monster was born and she swore never again to be dumped by another man. All future relationships on HER terms. The other men she dated do not complain about her because A.) She has serious blackmail material or B.) They always gave her her way. And she was happy when she dumped them for the next step up. Pay for play…..

    “We all know what the name is, so you better lay your money down…”- Plant, Page

    That’s my deuce for now…. John aka Dane Bramage

  78. Steamroller

    While Alyce was on direct, the people on HLN were suggesting that JM would have to tip-toe around because his agressive aproach may backfire with the jury. HLN further went on to question their tv jury if that was the case.
    IMO, a softer style would have been absolutely the wrong strategy in dealing with AL. Jaun’s cross examination exposed all chinks in AL’s armour. AL more than deserves all the criticism she is receiving. Jaun is superb. Just check out the look on Wilmont’s face when he in action. On the other hand, JA has a clueless look. She sure smiles alot for someone who is going to get “the needle”. Maybe Wilmont should wise her up. It looks like Nurmi already knows that the case is over, and he is ready to move on. Wilmont acts like she actually believes Arias. JA reminds me of Manson in the way she can mesmorize people. They are apologizing, sending her books and cards, and getting all touchy with her. Hardly objective assessments in my mind.
    Jaun has done an awsome job! I wouldn’t change a thing.

  79. Lisa Gorman

    I’m new so don’t kill the messenger plz. Since the Casey Anthony case which was highly unusual, jurors are more apt to be engaged especially high profile cases. Having served as a juror IMO it is very unlikely this panel will not agree arriving at a majority decision. If there is a member(s) that have the opposite decision the foreperson along with their supporting members will debate with those not in agreement to arrive at a unanimous decision. i.e. I do NOT believe this will be a hung jury.

  80. cat

    Great post…

    Does anyone know, if she is impeached and her testimony is stricken, whether or not that would forfeit her huge payday? If the defense is not allowed to use her testimony, useless as it was, then I.don’t see why the taxpayers of AZ should have to foot her outrageous bill…

  81. Anticipating JM’s cross – I “felt” ALV showed disrespect for the Office of the Court and an attempt to “show off” by example – that JM’s an abusive male. From the start, her smirky comments… mirrored JA as JA probably wanted them to be. If you’ve ever been legally interviewed, deposed, or a witness before, you quickly find the process serious, intimidating and frightening. I have been – and found a little humility goes a long way and – “honesty” goes even further… ha ! But any good lawyer will coach you the best legal way to answer a question you can’t answer (or don’t want to answer) [even a "yes" or "no"] is by saying “I don’t recall.” You may suffer the wrath of this response but none the less – offering the LEAST amount of information is “The Golden Rule.” Now with social media there is hot bed of interpretation available. Imagine if Jodi (Einstein) Arias would have simply asked for a lawyer from the get-go, this might be a very different case altogether. High IQ’s sometimes lack common sense, (right brain vs. left brain – emotion vs. logic) I’m sure there are layers of issues in side JA’s head, personality disorders & psychopathy, notwithstanding. It’s too bad someone didn’t introduce REAL evaluations of this girl instead of simply placating her dangerous ability to project her ruse and dominate this court with perversions. JM seems almost insulted by the freak show that she has brought to this trial. I believe in “90%” !!! 90% of this defense would not be admissible as relevant in another more seasoned criminal court. (…I know D/P.) and a whole lot shorter. Actually, doesn’t it really narrow down to the facts of murder 1 and pre-meditation which can be made @ the crime in a single moment – VS. self-defense in a manner for which can only be justified to the degree of the threat ? Diversion defense ! If convicted don’t be surprised if JA doesn’t file for ineffectual counsel. ~

  82. George Ferenzi

    Very good analysis I believe the so called expet witness was biased and perjured herself.

  83. khintx

    I think that LaV did this for all the wrong reasons. I think the DT promised her money (and lots of it), fame, talking head interviews on TV with celebrity interviewers, and the possibiilty of more speaking engagements at better places than she would ever be able to do! …. I think they patted her on the back, “You can do it, Alyce! We got your back! If anything starts to go south, don’t worry, we’ll bail you out!”………..

    And that she kept looking at the defense table so much because she was looking for all that help they promised her when the going got tough. Only they weren’t there for her. And that’s when she really got diarrhea of the mouth. She sunk her own boat. She’s aint so cocky now, is she?

    kh

    • Robert Edwards

      Where is Oprah when you need her?

    • myrtle mintz

      it was unprofessional of laviolettes friends to keep laughing out loud when laviolette thought she got one on martinez i cant beleive the judge allowed this to happen 3 times.for that matter i cant beleive the judge let laviolette show such disrespect for the judge and martinez after the judge told laviolette to answer yes or no laviolette kept up her long winded answers.judge should have charged her with contempt of court and charged her 100 evertime it would not have taken laviolette long to start showing respect

  84. The book given by Dr. Samuels was “Your Erroneous Zones” by Wayne Dyer. Since this is, as mentioned, a self-help book, he seems to have entered the role of a psychotherapist in addition a forensic psychologist evaluator. Changing roles can be considered an inappropriate dual relationship under the ethical codes. (See from Treating Therapist to Expert witness at eisnerinstitute.org/blog)

    I am not convinced he wasn’t offering therapy during the 12 visits. It would be interesting to see his interview notes during all of the visits. The apparent role conflict did not escape the prosecutor’s cross examination, and should re-emerge in the rebuttal.

  85. Ria

    I just found your blog and love it! I’m totally addicted to this trial.

    Just my 2 cents here, and I don’t know much about trials and the laws etc., but I think one of the defenses biggest issues is wanting to get Jodi off completely. The only way they could do that was with self defense which, when you look at the facts of the case, was a pretty ludicrous and far fetched notion. But, for whatever reason, her attorney’s went for it.

    Had she been my client, I would’ve told her “Due to the brutality of the murder, your admission to it, and all the other facts surrounding it, let’s go for some sort of lesser murder charge”. She wants a 5 year sentence with time served so she can waltz out of jail and continue on with her life. One of her groupies was calling into HLN a while back and he said Jodi feels confident it’ll be self defense and she’ll be out soon.

    She’s hoping for a Casey Anthony type of outcome but I think this jury’s already made it clear, that ain’t happening!

  86. Kathy

    I have to say that once you lie on the stand under oath and especially as an “expert” you are done, your word means absolutely nothing and you cannot testify to anything again as your credibility is completely tarnished, nobody will hire you to testify for any case be it family court or criminal court or any other court. And if Im not mistaken I think (not 100% sure as it differs in some States) her testimony in this case can be made public record and used in other proceedings against her.

    • Kathy

      Just to clarify, what I mean by other proceedings is if she is ever asked to testify in a case again (although that would surprise me) they can question her on this testimony and bring up the inconsistencies and the lies etc.

      • myrtle mintz

        I am still asking laviolette questions but cant get any answers.If laviolette is charged with perjury will it open the door for appeals on other cases where she was expert witness if you lie on the stand for one you will lie for another

  87. Love this site .. I have been listening to this case from day one. I’m wondering if alyce is actually doing all this stuff to force her testimony to be impeached , so as to bring about an appeal for Jodi.

    • Thanks Marilyn. I don’t think any expert witness would want their testimony impeached/stricken/found to be perjury.

    • Robert Edwards

      Marilyn, at this point anything is possible. It is a real freak show of a trial. I have to remind myself that a man was coldbloodly murdered by an ex-girlfriend. Between Dr. Samuels and Miss Laviolette one would think this was an episode of the dating game with Samuels and Laviolette competing for Miss Arias.

  88. anniebannanie

    I’m new to this blog, but would like to ask opinion of fellow debaters: I think it is reprehensible that this friend of ja’s, donovan berington, is posting twitter comments for ja. Her insults to Mr Martinez are despicable. She also posted a photo of ja giving Nancy Grace the finger. Berington said she was just adjusting her glasses! ja is protected by the 1st amendment, but I still think it is disgusting that this berington person has opened a twitter account for her. Twitter should have denied the account. It blows my mind that ANYONE believes that ja is innocent, or even the victim of DV. She lured Travis by premarital sex, which is forbidden in his religion, and he was a 30 year old guy who gave in to temptation; hardly a reason to be butchered!

    • thevocalvaper

      @annieB- I checked @jodieannarias (by Donavan whoEver) and is covered all but one snarky remark had been removed from the twitter page. Of COURSE, JA can say “I didn’t have anything to do with it! It was all Donavan!!” But who knows? The snarky remark left was pointed at JM, of course, something about the louder you are, the less you know…whatEVER!!! Just once again proves what a “lime-light pig” she is. Unless all attention is given to her, she “spaces” and goes into her own little world. Look back at the video where travis was telling a story at a party, and she was “sleeping” in his lap? (Actions saying: I am so bored with you not paying attention, I’m going to SLEEP!”). Then, she does a lousy acting job of “waking up” and the impression *I* got was “Either PAY ATTENTION to ME, or ELSE…” It’s OBVIOUS that she is not happy NOT being the center of attention!

      @Evelyn/Robert/Melinda…(yes, Robert, How WILL we survive without that Master-educated resource? :) ) There are 65 year olds, and there are 65 year olds! My DH is 71, physically…he has recovered from a stroke in the past 18 months, still works a full 40+ hour work week, and gets his news “online” daily. He refuses to use a debit card, but if that’s the worst of his sins, he is mentally still in his early 50s…I have a 50 year old cousin who REFUSES to buy a computer! She drives to the library if she needs to look up something, doesn’t own a cell phone and asks me why I don’t send her letters…(because I don’t own stationary/stationery I guess!) (and because there is no spell check in my fountain pen!)

      Grama says that “a pond that never gets new water becomes rancid and a breeding ground for Mosquitos!” AlV may have been attending her annual CEUs, but her ideas still consist of what she developed back in the 70/80s. I’m sure that there WAS DV involving men as the “survivor” and “women” as the dirty rotten bastid! Even into the 90s a therapist could sell “women are goddesses and men are bastids”…but the new millennium has brought about true equality, and women can be just as vile and dispicible as men can. Like the old pond Grama talks about, alyce has not added new water; her ideas ase dated…(and remember, she was the 11th or 12th choice…all those OTHER MSWs turned the job DOWN!!! Now what does THAT tell you??)

      Children are TAUGHT to lie by their parents/caregivers. For instance, if you have an abusive parent, and you do something wrong and KNOW you are going to be beaten with the belt…what is the motive for telling the truth? The beating will be just as bad, IF, and ONLY IF, the lie is discovered!!! It’s a 50/50! Jodi IS a liar. She has ALWAYS been a liar! She was either deling with parents that either were a) dumber than she is OR b) don’t care to investigate any deeper, sometimes because it’s too much trouble, sometimes because they are self centered…what ever…

      Jodi is unable to look beyond this very moment, to put herself in someone else’s she’s for a moment. And she ISN’T as smart as she THINKS she is!! EXAMPLE: telling Juan Martinez that she cut herself at work, and DID tell her boss, who gave her a bandaid. BUZZZZZ!!! Federal/state law REQUIRES businesses, NO MATTER WHAT SIZE to carry workmans compensation insurance!! ANY on the job injury, no matter hiw small, MUST have reports filed, and the employee sent to the clinic IF it is reported to the employer. So, mr Martinez KNEW she was lying about reporting the injury, and knew that even if there WERE a crowd of people wanting margaritas, the employer would have sent her to the clinic! Do you REALLY think the owner of the business would have said “no, I didn’t send her to the doctor, we had to make margaritas! Please fine me thousands of dollars, and INCREASE my workmans comp insurance rate, please!”

      Sorry, I’m on a rant again….

      The photo of her flipping the bird….”oh, she was pushing up her glasses!” Really? Her glasses were in her NOSE, NOT on her CHIN!!!

      Oh, boy, pizza man is here…ranting makes me hungry!!!

  89. Evelyn Kirbach

    This witness seems to be out of touch with society. She stated several times she is “old fashion” and not comfortable discussing Jodi’s sexual conduct. When alyce took the case, it was to promote her career. The truth is, she is too old to be handling a case of this magnitude! Retire Alyce, your a “know it all old lady” that knows nothing!

    • Robert Edwards

      She is 65 years-old and could retire but what would become of the domestic violence industry if she were not on the scene. She is the country’s most eminent expert on dv. The industry would be lost without her master’s level superiority.

      • Melinda

        It is highly unlikely that the “industry” would suffer at all. There are hundreds of reliable resources for help in the DV arena.

      • Melinda

        Robert…I just re-read your post.I truly thought you were being serious. Sorry

      • Robert Edwards

        No problem.

      • khintx

        Let’s show that post to LaV for her expert opinion! I’m pretty sure it proves by looking behind the words, Robert is a misogynist leading a double life. You know, mild mannered commenter by day who secrectly humiliates women sexually by night. And his worst fear is being found out. He’d kill to keep that from coming out!

        kh

    • Melinda

      ..Hmm..I am 63 years old and totally capable of understanding complex issues. I do not believe her age is an issue. I am guessing that she was very much like this during her 20′s, 30′s, 40′s, and beyond. She found her niche in an area where victims, as well as non-victims, want to be believed. She has provided this. The defense team found her because they knew that she sees every woman as a victim and they knew that her world view would correspond to their needs.

  90. wendy kletschka

    if wong testifies that a juror saw JM signing autographs and getting his pic taken, is that grounds for a mistrial

  91. Maybe it’s me, but I think Alyce Laviolette did an outstanding job as an expert in the field of domestic violence. As a nation we needed to address the issue as to whether or not Snow White was a battered woman. And don’t even get me started on Cinderella.

    • Dlister

      Stephen, as far as I’m concerned, no need to say “Maybe it’s me…” because yes, I do believe ALV has merit; she has a long history and passion in this arena. I don’t hate her. However, she did lose me when she forgot that she was really there, IMO, FOR THE JURY, and not her own image.

      All I know is, first, I am not an expert in anything, but if I was ever called as a witness, I know that it’s the jury who needs my clarity in testimony. It is them I am there for, not me or my prosecution or defense. That means, in cross, clear responses without sparring. Jury first, always.

      • Steamroller

        The truth would be devastating for the Defense. They had to come up with these “has been” experts who were not Einsteins like Jodie. Real experts would not have takin this case. (truthful ones at least)

    • Melinda

      Yes,it is just you.

    • Robert Edwards

      I think Cinderella was in a same-sex relationship. I wonder how Miss LaViolette would handle lesbian battering. Oh, yes it was Cin’s fathers fault.

      • LOL. Now Robert, I have a personal Q for you. Are you straight? I thought straight guys all loved lesbians? :) Really dear, I think Alyce is really getting to you.

      • Robert Edwards

        Personally I only know two lesbians. If I may say something uncouth….Even a strap-on would go limp when it got a look at Miss Alyce’s face. I only dislike men-hating lesbians. As the expert herself Miss LaViolette has said 90 per cent of communication is non-oral. I take that to mean that first impressions are lasting impressions. My first impression of her was….

      • George Ferenzi

        Robert I agree. She don’t like men no how.

    • anniebannanie

      Read your post twice….ROFL!!!….love our sarcasm..

  92. Ryan

    Canada loves your blog, keep up the good work ! In a nutshell what are we expecting(itinery) this week from the trial?

    • I love Canookians! :) Next up after all the sideshows is the defense computer expert (again) dunno what he is gonna testify to. Then juror qs then Juan gets another crack for rebuttal! (I think)

      • Adam Friedman

        and cannot CANNOT wait for that. Juan seems to have webbed a particularly intricate and lethal web for the defense. Looking forward to hearing about the third can, the trip to Salinas and the 2 Hour nail excursion that I have a sneaking suspicion will have a hair color change as well. AND very much looking forward to secret messages in the magazine that IMO will be Juan bringing on Matt McCartney who we already saw is sparking fear and loathing in Ms Arias. I keep thinking of those ALV fans in the court laughing at Juan….. we’ll see who laughs last. Love love love your site, Tamara.

  93. Adam Friedman

    OMG i said “webbed” when I meant “weaved” ALYCE!

  94. I think the issue is whether Laviolette will be fined for approaching the Alexander family. I read somewhere that was a possibility.

  95. peachteachr

    And, then, JM gets to put on an entire rebuttal case to the defense. His expert is Dr. Janeen DeMarte; she appears to be very accomplished. JM is also calling someone from Walmart and someone from the cruiseline about the trip to Cancun… we assume. After that, closing arguments. I don’t know what to make of tomorrow’s schedule. The other hearing @ HLN was in open court so the Wong issue may be in open court, too.

    • anniebannanie

      I am **PRAYING** that JM will bring on his own DV witness, who will trample, smash, flatten, ALL of LaV’s biased opinions.

  96. I have been a family law/criminal paralegal in Los Angeles County for 20 years. Alyce is NOT on the Superior Courts list of approved counselors and/or evaluators dealing with family law, child abuse, domestic abuse cases. Also, on her CV she claims in 1984-85 she was an EXPERT WITNESS in a murder trial of a woman (battered?) who killed her husband. As her license from 1985-1989 was as an assistant who could only work under direct supervision of a licensed psychologist,another “misspoken”??? Also lists that in 1997 (16 years ago,not 29 as she claimed) she was an Expert Witness for the murder trial of a MAN who killed his daughter’s abusive boyfriend. When questioned by Mr. Martinez, she backed off from 2 to 1 to -0-, but it is listed. Another “misspoken??? how many is that so far,besides the gun shot in the closet and others. Are she and Jodi both “suffering from delusions of grandeur”??

    • Robert Edwards

      Interesting information Mrs. Cooper.

    • Daryl Morris

      Oh, Tamara….where arrrrreeee you? We have another one…..

      • I let that through. She has a different point. If the man case was during her internship, then she was not qualified to be an expert witness… That is, if the facts are right above. It’s a RHOA night though and things get too nuts around here for me to investigate stuff. Plus I am working on tomorrow’s JA post. :)

      • I was very pleased to find your site. When I saw much of todays banter was speculation regarding tomorrows hearing re possible perjury, I looked up her CV. Page 17 5th line from the bottom – 1997 case. Page 18 last entry in middle of page before VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: 1984-85 case. Your condescending attitudes when someone’s just presenting facts — what I am looking for in a forum. bye bye.

      • Um, Shelia? I actually BOLDED your comment because thought the information interesting and important. If she was not a licensed MFT back then, and it certainly appears that she was not, she has lied on on CV and in court. I appreciated the info and not sure why you are offended. That said, I read the comments via email one by one out of context so maybe I missed something.

      • Daryl Morris

        I am so sorry. It’s my fault Sheila was offended. Sheila, please come back! 😞

    • Not sure what the issue was above, sometimes the post could be out of order, or there is a misinterpreted comment. The blogs are not like an online college class where only constructive or clarifying comments may be posted. “Internetese” is much different than face to face. A single word can be taken out of context.

      Anyways with respect to the current expert’s credentials:

      I. An expert is not expected to have total recall of all their old cases.
      2. If a report was signed by (even a defrocked) supervisor it could be part of case.
      3. The old report has to materialize in order to demonstrate that she was offering a report without full independent licensure.
      4. She was so evasive when asked about this, she did more damage by not quickly answering the question.

    • Danny

      I suspect that Jodi Arias and Alyce LaViolette may be having delusions of adequacy. That would be a huge step up for either of them.

  97. Robert Edwards

    Peacteachr, does Mr.Martinez’s rebuttal begin tomorrow?

    • peachteachr

      No, but he does get to ask rebuttal questions. I believe that this is the defense’s last witness and then his rebuttal case starts. Tamara, I just read on Justice 4 Travis site that ALV is back at the hospital now. No scource for this info. If i were in her shoes, I’d just call the undertaker to come get me!

      • anniebannanie

        You know she’ll amplify her health problems, and try to blame JM. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, LaV! I can just hear her whining to KN and JM…oh, he’s rude; he hurt my feelings etc etc…

  98. Robert Edwards

    One last bit of info for Daryl before I leave.

    When you compare men and women’s overall earnings, men out-earn women, but when you compare pay for men and women who are similar qualified and working the same job, this sex pay gap is below the figure often reported.

    Men’s wages grow for a longer period of time and achieve higher level’s than women’s, on average.

    Why?

    JOB CHOICE: Overall, men and women gravitate towards different careers. The most popular choices for men tend to pay higher than the most popular choices for women

    FAMILY RESPONSIBILITES: Women’s pay growth stops out-pacing men’s at around age 30, which is when college-educated women typically start having children.

  99. claudia

    Jm asked AL if she ever touched or hugged ja. She looked up, around, struggled with what to say. Then she said well, I might have touched her arm. Then she quickly said something about being seperated by a glass pannel. I think they did have contact at one point. That was her first response then she quickly changed her answer.

  100. countrywoman

    Hi Y’all

    I just stumbled on this e-oasis of information and interesting commentary. I suppose, like everything else, we all view this Arias case through our own lens. I have lived next door to domestic violence – of the valid kind – and cringe at the serious unprofessionalism of this so-called “expert.” The awesome domestic violence professional who helped me to help my neighbor bears little resemblance to Ms. Alyce.

    Every single undocumented allegation made to LaViolette by the documented liar Arias SHOULD have been prefaced with “according to Jodi,” or “Jodi told me…..” Instead, she sat there under oath and asserted the allegations as fact. I do believe, in view of the acidic questions from the jury, that the tactic did not work. I haven’t seen it mentioned here, but I was so hoping a juror would ask: “Since you provided the defendant with a wealth of literature on this subject, (books, magazines) didn’t that make it possible for her to educate herself about domestic violence and create her own plausible fantasy-world of abuse?” (Arias does seems to possess all the skills of a first-class grifter.) Another question that begged to be asked: “Doesn’t sexual manipulation qualify as manipulation?”

    There is a glaring indication of a pre-planned slaughter that comes from Jodi’s mother during her interview following Jodi’s arrest. (I hope this can be played during the rebuttal case) Mama Arias was recounting what Jodi had used for plausible deniability. She told her skeptical mother that she could show her the gas receipts to prove she hadn’t been anywhere near Arizona. She may as well have said, “No mom, I thought this out ahead of time!”

    Anyway, thanks for the forum. I have bookmarked the site and look forward to additional insights as the trial grinds on.

    • Gloria

      You are absolutely right on everything you have said. And Ms.arias is absolutely a grifter! Laviolette is working for her reti

      • Gloria

        Laviolet is working for her retirement. She lies and is very biased. I believe she is a victim of domestic abuse herself. She married in 1969 and divorced in 1980. She was married for 11 years. She’s been single since. Her husband then remarried 5 months after their divorce. I think she’s one miserable, biased, angry woman who is so pissed off at men because of what her husband did to her that she has worked her whole life at making every man pay for what she went thru. AND she probably thinks Ms.arias is a hero for what she did. I pray for justice for Travis everyday.

    • Gloria

      Laviolet is working for her retirement. She lies and is very biased. I believe she is a victim of domestic abuse herself. She married in 1969 and divorced in 1980. She was married for 11 years. She’s been single since. Her husband then remarried 5 months after their divorce. I think she’s one miserable, biased, angry woman who is so pissed off at men because of what her husband did to her that she has worked her whole life at making every man pay for what she went thru. AND she probably thinks Ms.arias is a hero for what she did. I pray for justice for Travis everyday.

    • Gloria

      I aldLaviolet is working for her retirement. She lies and is very biased. I believe she is a victim of domestic abuse herself. She married in 1969 and divorced in 1980. She was married for 11 years. She’s been single since. Her husband then remarried 5 months after their divorce. I think she’s one miserable, biased, angry woman who is so pissed off at men because of what her husband did to her that she has worked her whole life at making every man pay for what she went thru. AND she probably thinks Ms.arias is a hero for what she did. I pray for justice for Travis everyday.

    • Tammie

      You my dear hit the nail “smack dab” on the head!!!
      Right on!

    • Countrywoman: Excellent point about LaViolette failing to preface her comments with “according to my conversation with Jodi” or according to Jodi’s writings”. I wasn’t aware of her narrow source of information on the case until Martinez recently mentioned, again, the 40 hours speaking only with Jodi and no other interviews and the review of the emails and texts between the two as her only other collateral. How unprofessional. She enabled herself to provide an uninformed, incomplete assessment by limiting her sources of information on the defendant. Bad business.

      In viewing Ms. LaViolette’s CV online, its clear she is not a PhD nor a Psychiatrist. The bulk of her time is spent in speaking engagements. If the Defense wanted a real assessment of Jodi, they could have chosen a much more appropriate psychological professional.

      I think Ms. LaViolette has spent days regretting the decision to be a part of this trial. She looks like she’s been hit by a bus. Strange that a psychological professional with so much experience with abuse did not really understand how serious and searing her time on the stand was going to be in a murder one case.

  101. Aloha

    LaViolette testified that she had testified in criminal court for 1 or 2 men. That was exposed as a lie. She hadn’t EVER testified in criminal court for a man EVER.

    LaViolette tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the jury but Juan wasn’t having any of THAT!!!

    Um, that sort of willful lying is PERJURY is it not?

    If out of her 18 cases where she’s testified, and there is only “one or two men”, wouldn’t that be memorable enough for LaViolette to know? As soon as she made up the lie, she sunk herself just like the Titanic.

    LaViolette was trying to make it seem like she was unbiased-like she didn’t hate men. But instead she ended up undermining her own credibility!

    • Gloria

      I think this is why the judge wants her back on the stand on Tuesday April 16. It’s because of the perjury and you may see fireworks that day. I just hope she is charged with perjury so they have to throw her whole, testimony out. It was all abunch of crap anyways.

      • I was watching on Friday when the judge told ALV about coming back on Monday or Tuesday.then the judge asked a women who was sitting in the back row if she would have her att. with her Tuesday .it was very clear that this was connected with ALV.The women was about 30y/o dark hair.I remember thinking that this lady and ALV issue was connected. Did anyone else see this After the judge told this lady in the back to come in Tuesday she turned and said to ALV come back on truesday and then the cameras turned off to the seal

      • nope. you probably has some sort of special feed that the rest of us could not see. If we saw it, we would be talking about it here. Oh. wait…

      • Patricia

        I saw that also..the dark haired woman is Ms Wong, a producer for HLN

      • The woman is Grace Wong. She works for HLn.

      • NO WAY! Really?

        Apparently I woke up cranky today. In my defense I read every comment and some commenters can’t be bothered to even read the posts before rushing in with breaking news that we have been talking about in the last 500 or so posts.

      • Robin Brenizer

        If that was the case, it may be about her approaching the victim’s sister and talking to her. That is a big no no.

      • Donna Cancassi

        LaViolette testified that she had testified in criminal court for 1 or 2 men. That was exposed as a lie. She hadn’t EVER testified in criminal court for a man EVER.

      • Sharon

        Actually, LaViolette said, “…at least two men” regarding her testimony in criminal court. I just re-watched the video.

    • you’re right @aloha and reading commenters who defend her when referring to the “one or two men” seem unwilling to acknowledge that she herself corrected her testimony and changed her answer to “0″. No one here is accusing of her anything that she herself didn’t admit to.

  102. drdebo

    love this sight- have it bookmarked too!

  103. Ruth

    Great blog and responses!

    Yes, Tuesday will be most interesting. No way will Laviolette be able to get away with her lying about testifying in criminal court. No wonder she had anxiety attacks and went to the hospital on Friday. Heck, if I lied under oath, I’d be feeling pretty sick too!

  104. Jgee

    Someone said during the Crazy Anthony trial that you don’t have to SEE it rain to KNOW it rained. It doesn’t matter what any of these rent-a-shrinks say because of all of the premeditated “rain drops” add up to a major S*#% storm of evidence. There’s no way to have the whole story unless you actually witnessed this brutal slaying, but hopefully the jurors will use COMMON SENSE to pull it all together. Sitting on a jury is an eye-opening affair. The other 11 people all LOOK normal, but once you get into that jury room to deliberate, cue the Twilight Zone music!

  105. Lee

    I, too, am glad to find this blog & agree with the statements about JA and AL. I wish Juan would ask AL, how can a man be a womanizer, a sexual manipulator of woman, a sex addict, attracted to young girls with pig-tails, and young boys with toddler underpants on? Is there a name for this type of man? Has she ever in her lifetime came across such a person with all of the above? It makes no sense at all. Also, when JA mentioned, on the stand, that she gave TA “pamphlets on pedophilia” so he can get some help for himself, where the hell did she obtain these pamphlets? What organization prints pamphlets on pedophilia – as if you can go to the doctor and have it fixed?

    • Joanne

      So sweet, caring JA tried to help Travis by finding “pedophilia pamphlets” for him?
      Whoa! She’s the one with a serious problem! While there is no evidence of Travis having an attraction to little boys, aside from a known liar’s word, there is a multitude of proof that Jodi is a killer. WTH, she admitted !

      • Judy Nichols

        Hi TamaraCan  you please take me off this blog. I love it BUT It is blowing up my cell phone and computer. With all my other email it is impossible for me to sort through them.  It looks like I am getting comments from hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people.  I had asked a question and thought I was going to get a response to MY question ONLY but I am getting comments from everyone’s questions and comments.  How do you keep up with all these questions and comments?—–you are amazing.Thank You so muchJudy

      • I wish I could help, judy but I can’t take people off. I’m not kidding. It sounds like you need to unclick whatever you clicked on to start the messages. You must be very overwhelmed if all of this is coming to your phone. I get them all in my email too and it is very time consuming.

        I think what you need to do is go to the bottom of these comments, click like you are going to comment and then under the box uncheck anything that is checked there. Hope this helps and sorry for the inconvenience!

      • FYI – TT & Judy. I too have been glued to my old Mac but now it’s running like syrup – ALL of these great comments are flooding my email…? You should have received a confirmation/subscribe email from WordPress.com – Use that to try > to manage your subscript.
        > https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?email
        (then your email address is attached @ end with other codes) …When you get “Blogs | Follow | WordPress page – click on Unfollow. ~ I decided to just go onsite to read them all. Still got more emails this morning, so have to see if it works during today. Still love this site for JA talk.
        ! Good Luck !

      • You can unsubscribe by following the link at the bottom of any one of your emails. (unless you’re saying it doesnt work). Pretty sure an “unsubscribe” feature is a requirement.

      • Patricia

        Where the hell would she find pedophilia pamphlets… its not like its like” how to pickle nuts…..walnuts”…LOL

    • Jessica

      In regards to the pamphlets JA told 2 different stories. When interrogated by her attorney she said she gave him the pamphlets. But when JM interrogated her she said that she mailed him the pamphlets a few days before her trip. She made up the whole story and that’s why she can’t keep her lies streight.

      • Elle Campbell

        Why does JA only have pix of TA’s Tshirt AFTER the murder? She documents so much that the supposed gift from him would’ve been snapped as soon as she got it….right? Also she won’t admit to any off the stabbing because that’s what is going to get her the DP. Putting that knife in her hand does not say self-defense. Next, all this talk about infidelity, cheating, domestic violence, etc. what does that have to do with Jodi and Travis? I ask because she never lived with him (a few days stay doesn’t count), he verbally (she admitted) told her that he wanted to date other people, and most importantly Travis never slept with any other woman but JA. How is this infidelity between two people who were never officially committed to each other (thru God’s eyes or any other) for that matter? How is this domestic violence when they lived apart during the courtship? How is this cheating when both parties agreed to date others (even if she didn’t….he did)? None of this makes sense and LaViolette is stumbling around old school values and not keeping up with this digital generation. She reads too much into something and she KNEW Travis was sick of Jodi. With all that we’ve seen….even we can tell Jodi was pushing his buttons.

    • Clarencia

      Lee, your comment made me LOL b/c of the sheer common sense nature of it.
      I have some experience in the field & you are so right about there being no man
      in existence (probably) who would combine all those aberrant issues (sex addiction,
      interest in pre-pubertal girls, interest in young boys, etc. blah, blah, blah). Also, it’s
      unlikely that Jodi could’ve found a “pamphlet” on pedophilia. Regardless, she’s the
      one who needed pamphlets for herself on a number of different behavioral aberrations
      and psychological disturbances. Add to this crazy mix two “experts” such as Dr. Fog
      and Alyce-in-Juanderland, and the whole scenario would never be considered
      anything but a soap opera version of fiction. Sadly, a man was brutally and viciously
      murdered, and I lament his siblings who sit in their courtroom, obviously suffering
      inwardly day after day. How bizarre that a so-called professional (ALV) would have
      approached his sister in such a flip and off-hand manner. I believe she may still have
      to deal with the Court about that.

  106. Jgee

    I don’t know how that defense team can sleep at night. They HAVE to know that JA & AV are lying. Do they REALLY believe them? Do they just not care? Is winning all that matters?

    • Jgee….Oh, I think they sleep like babies! Does anyone else notice how the defense team snickers at Juan when he gets a bit tongue-tied while trying to make his point? Then there are the 555 objections from JW, which even when overruled, she smiles like the “cat that just ate the canary”. Yes, she’s very pleased with herself! I believe they (the defense) have tried to use some of the outlandish and dishonest tactics the Casey A. team used thinking this case is going to really “put them on the map”! I really dislike them almost as much as I do JA

      • Patricia

        Her demeanor is on par with her client..they act like mean girls in the school making fun of someone they perceive as less fortunate

      • Elle

        It’s funny that Wilmott lets herself look like a girlfriend of JA. It’s one thing to support your client; however, it’s another to blatantly disrespect TA’s family. She giggles too much, and she smiles likes she’s playing a game. I think the defense comes off as unprofessional and sloppy. If we’re going to call for a mistrial, I would like to see something more trivial than petty accusations like school age children having tantrums. The defense team has been changed at least four times since the beginning of JA’s arrest, which seems like stall tactics from the very beginning. And Ms. Arias’ she-male friends (Donavan and the other she-male) don’t know her at all. In fact, Donavan met JA in jail, not Dollar Tree like she claimed on HLN the other evening (check out the article): http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/2008/09/05/20080905gl-nwvarson0904-ONL.html

        JA is a fool for letting someone speak for her, especially a former inmate. I mean Donavan is a convicted arsonist who can’t be trusted either. Will someone tell JA that she is facing the death penalty. I don’t care where you go, you can find this trial all over the news. If the jury is NOT sequestered….why do they (JA and team) think that just that small report will not be seen or heard about! I’m sure the jurors have integrity; however, it is virtually impossible to avoid anything about this trial unless you don’t read or watch the news on any communication level. Even Showbiz tonight starts off their show with Jodi tidbits. You can’t watch anything without seeing Ms. Arias these days!

      • Thanks for that link, Elle. I wasn’t clear on the arson charge. Guess she was helping out a friend. Just like she is Jodi now….

    • Clarencia

      Most likely they rationalize that they’re saving her life (from the death penalty).
      That’s how these anti-death penalty attorneys are: pretty bizarre. The one who
      was to have testified in Casey Anthony (from DePaul University in Chicago) has
      even chained herself to the witness stand to demonstrate a point.

  107. Aloha

    With Laviolettes’ inconsistent answers, multiple admonishments by the judge, illegally approaching the Alexander family (Maybe LaViolette has a guilty conscience about her testimony?), and now the BOLD LIE about having testified for two men in criminal court when it was actually zero men, I’d say there’s something for the judge to discuss with her alright!

    (Judge Stephens has been really laid back all along and I have been surprised at some of the things she’s allowed–like that heavily edited version of Travis and Jodi’s phone call where only Travis’s words were seen displayed on the video screen while and all of the sexually explicit words that Travis used were capitalized. Jodi’s use of sexually explicit words were unseen and treated as nonexistent in that heavily edited, highly ‘creative’ video. That was a really skewed exhibit , in my opinion!)

    BUT when the judge was talking to LaViolette about being coming back on Mon./Tues. about “the other issue” with LaViolette, the judge meant business! Oh yes, the judge was awake like she’d just had 5 shots of expresso.
    Cant wait to find out what THAT “other issue” is.

    LaViolette is whining now about “social media”. . . well, she KNOWS full well that the cameras are permitted in the court room. So if she deliberately fudges her testimony in front of the cameras about having testified for 2 men when she really didn’t, then she shouldn’t be surprised if others comment on the fact that she has lied.

    Nobody forced LaViolette to tell that lie–not the defense team nor the prosecutor–nobody! . . . However, LaViolette freely CHOSE to misrepresent the truth and everyone witnessed it because thankfully, the TV cameras were there.
    If she gets social media “feedback” because of antics like that, should this be shocking?

    If someone saw her in the restaurant where they are also eating and then snaps a pic of her and members the defense team eating, she should also not be shocked. WHY? Because she on TV now, so she is easily recognizable. Some people might think it’s cool to get a pic of someone “famous”/”infamous”. . . This happens all the time. Once again, not a big surprise.

    • Your comment bout when the judge was talking to ALV. about coming back on mon. or tues. right after that who was the lady the judge was talking to in the back row about coming back on tues with her attorney.The lady said she would have her attorney with her on Tuesday and that’s when they agreed on both coming in on Tuesday.I am thinking it may be the sister of TA. that ALV.talked to. It was discussed on HLN, a few days ago.Also J.M. KNOWS what ALV said to TA sister. In case people are watching the trail on HLN..way too many com. u can watch it on the net AZCENTRAL.COM LIVE..

      • yeah probably Travis Alexander’s Asian sister. She did look sort of like what Travis would look like if he were Asian and female, and well you know… alive and stuff.

        (I need to stop) ;)

      • The Liz Lemon

        Travis has an Asian sister?

      • Patricia

        It was an HLN producer, Ms Wong

      • patty

        So, I have been faithfully watching the trial. I never did find out what happened on the Tuesday that Alice came back. Did I miss it? What happened if anything?

      • Sandy

        Does anyone know what happened to Alyce as a result of the “issue”? It is Friday and i still have not found out. Also is court in session today, Friday? I do not see it on HLN or In Session.
        Thanks

      • myrtle mintz

        Im still trying to find out about laviolette.Have you found out anything

      • Nope. Nary a word. She is back giving speeches and selling T-shirts for Jodi… okay the proceeds will go to Alyce’s shelter but still. Weird. Tacky. Unprofessional.

    • jemima

      did we ever learn the reason for the hearing with alyce the tues. following end of her testimony

  108. Lynn Ivins

    I hope and pray that it can be proven that this so called “EXPERT” is a liar, or Jodi’s twin. The question is-Why would she ruin herself like that for Jodi? Hmm, something more to the story?

  109. My only concern of ALV being impeached and her record stricken from the case would be (hopefully) if Arias is convicted, that could help her appeal later.

  110. I just posted this on a different blog post of yours, but what can I say? I’m kinda hooked to tamaratattles, since the Jodi Arias trial isn’t on and I’m scouring the web for more information until I can watch it live tomorrow morning. :) Obsessed, I know.

    So anyway, below is the video from the original 12 News, which would explain why JM left out the front of the courthouse the day he did. This should help clear up the mistrial notion the defense filed. It seems to me either 12 News or HLN/CNN should have provided this information immediately to the judge or whomever they needed to, at the time it became an issue.

    http://www.azcentral.com/video/2261149720001

    • Rose

      Just ran across your post. Very interesting video. This would definitely have stopped Nurmi from making another motion for a mistrial. Thanks for sharing.

  111. amaysment

    I feel sorry for what this ridiculous woman has done to herself. She ought to be sanctioned in some way. It’s always in the air but never happens. Sad to say Juan is in more danger. Alyce needs new career. Due to her snow white analogy perhaps she should consider literary deconstructionism. O her poor retirement fund now. Yes alyce you are biased. Yes and no are simple one syllabel words. Liars can’t use them.

  112. icarmour

    I have a question about the shell casing found at the murder site. Can they not compare it to the shells that the Grandfather had for his stolen gun?

    • I remember Beth Kasaras talking to Vinnie Politan on HLN that when police searched JA’s Grandparents home – they found a box marked for 25 caliber ammunition with 22′s in their place. Clever, huh ?… So – No other match to the shell casings were found. Pre-Med in this case don’t mean college… !

    • Rose

      Icarmour, my understanding was that all the bullets were taken at the time of the robbery.

    • Dan R

      Only if the grandfather had spent shell casings.

  113. If things happened the way ja says about her kneeling infront of shower taking pictures of ta, im sure he was’nt showering with door open! then how could he have taken a step or two out to (body slam her) ? with her kneeling in front wouldn’t she have been hit with the shower door? as he exited? as they only open outwards!! also the water drops are clearly visable on the glass in the photos she took proves the door was closed when he was in shower. MJP

    • Melinda

      shower curtain, if anything, right?also, the m.e. said the bullet in his head was toward the top of his skull and traveled downward and lodged in his jaw…meaning he was shot by someone above him.

  114. Sandra

    What’s with today’s circus act being put on by the defense questioning whether or not Ms. Wong saw any jurors outside that may have seen JM signing autographs? Desperation written all over this proceeding. And seriously, if I have to listen to Mr. Nurmi’s big pen hitting the lectern ONE MORE TIME, I am going to scream. And what’s with the constant extending of his left arm and sleeve? At least he’s getting some exercise every time they object to something and ask the judge “may we approach?”.

    • Elle

      LOL…you’re funny Sandra. Another stall tactic and certainly no reason for mistrial. They’re just trying to ensure their paychecks are extended because the trial is winding down. As far as Nurmi extending his arm……his suits are getting smaller by the day, considering his increased paycheck is allowing him to eat more than he can purchase suits. The only real exercise he gets is when they go up for sidebar.

      • Sandra

        ha ha tee hee snort! Couldn’t have said it better myself! So why are they now peering into TA’s eyeball? I can see JA just fine, big white forehead and brown hair. What’s the point. We all know she was there!!

      • Sandra

        Let’s hope the outline of JA shows her holding a knife and a gun…

      • Elle

        If you really want to laugh, check out this link. I thought the author was incredibly clever in putting this one together referencing JA case. You’ll see this case in a whole new light. Kudos to MsTabularasa…..looking for more.

        BTW…any know what’s going on in court? Weren’t they supposed to return about 1:15/1:30′ish?

    • Sandra, OMG !!!!! I can’t believe someone else is grinding their teeth every time the damn pen clicks on the podem !! Sister, oh sister ! My husband laughs outloud everytime it happens, my husband just looks @ me to see my face cringe and hear my Grrrrrrrrrrrrr ! I won’t say here, what I’d like to do with him and THAT PEN…!!! —– click —- ! Thank you for like-mindness. Thought I was really losing my mind. ~ Whew !

    • Anne

      I hate how Nurmi always starts his sentences with, “Aaaand….”

  115. Steamroller

    The defense is really grasping at straws. Pathetic! Next they are going to say Jodi was abducted by aliens.

    • Elle

      No, they’re going to say she was abducted by the seven dwarfs who made her kill TA. They were also the ones telling JA that TA was cheating on her. She fed them you know while working at those restaurants. Now they have no one to talk to while JA eats one sandwich a day.

    • The Liz Lemon

      Well….what can we expect? Jenni+Kirk = Jirk.

  116. Sandra

    JM trying to discredit photo geek’s “Daubert Standard” (admissibility of expert witness testimony) and turn it into the “Dilbert Standard” (I see the outline of a dog). Way to go JM! Kurt Nurmi now trying to discredit JM by making personal attacks on JM. Smacks of desperation.

  117. Elle

    So what does today’s statement from Judge Stephens mean? To me this makes no difference because whether she had the knife, gun, rope, or whatever else in her hand with the camera TA is STILL dead. Now, on the other hand, the right arm looks as if she has it up where her hand may be behind her back (over the shoulder) possibly getting ready to come down on him with the knife…I’m just saying.

    How is this proving anything?

  118. Lorie

    Lorie: Boise, Idaho: Actually, in that ridiculous “eye image” I thi-i-i-nk I see 2 wings on the shoulders of the Dark Angel Arias. What the heck are those 2 lumps on her shoulders supposed to be? Jodi tweets about the “height challenged prosecutor”. What about the “Goodyear Blimp” defense attorney.

  119. Lorie

    Lorie: Boise, Idaho: Actually, in that ridiculous “eye image” I thi-i-i-nk I see 2 wings on the shoulders of the Dark Angel Arias. What the heck are those 2 lumps on her shoulders supposed to be? Jodi tweets about the “height challenged prosecutor Juan. What about the “Goodyear Blimp” defense attorney Numi.

  120. steph

    There once was a hired-gun named Alyce,
    Who excused all of Jodi’s malice,
    The Kool-Aid she drank,
    Her testimony sank,
    Showing us she’s nothing but callous.

  121. Steamroller

    What the heck is wrong with you people? It’s as plain as the nose on you face. It is a 16 ounce porterhouse steak, sliightly seasoned, medium well, with caramelized onions on top. Down and slightly to the right is a large baked potato with butter and sour cream with chives. If you look to the left, you will see the Ceasers salad.

    Now granted; there is no knife in the reflection from the eye, but how are you going to cut that steak Fat Boy? I rest my case.

    • Debbie

      annnnnd now I’m hungry, but make mine medium rare. That testimony from the photo geek was incredulous. He knows his camera stuff, but we’ve all played the “what’s that cloud look like” game and he should not be playing it at work , especially on a death penalty case.

  122. Rose

    Ellie, that video is HILARIOUS!!! Thanks for sharing.

  123. And maybe already said but she approached TA’s family during her time-out that she said she needed urgently.

  124. If she is impeached does that mean she will not get pain and may have to pay a fine herself?

  125. Dan R

    What does “Jinkasaurus” mean?

    • Sandra

      HLN lawyer and legal correspondent Jean Casarez. One of my favourites.

    • hi Dan! Jinkasauras originally came about because of Nancy Grace–she speaks very fast, and with her southern accent, it sounds like she says “What about that, Jinkasauras?” (jean casarez). Now that you’ve read that, you will never be able to hear nancy grace say anything else!! I know *I* don’t!!

  126. Donna Thompson

    I haven’t heard any questions regarding Alyce Laviolette’s testimony asked of Dr. Demarte. I wonder if during the closed, sealed hearing, he may have been impeached.

  127. emn

    now I would like for Alyce LaViolette to be charged and tried for perjury!

    • Roger

      We want justice all the way through!!! One less “Gun for Hire” in justice system.

    • ganesh

      If I ever believe in the Karma, this is the time I have so much faith that the Karma is going to punish the ugly Ms. LaViolette and put her in psychiatric ward forever for lying so much.

  128. Sarah

    Alyce LaViolette is a man-hating feminazi bitch. I hope someone beats the crap out of her.

  129. What the hell is wrong some people!? Are they blind!? Don’t they recognize a brutal man-hating Lesbian bigot when they see one!? The equation is quite simple. The KKK hates Blacks, the Nazis Hated the Jews, and Lesbian Feminists hate all men! Hate And bigotry is hate and bigotry no matter how you spell it out! A monster like Alyce probably sleeps with a book by Andrea Dworkin under her pillow! Wake up people!!!

Please read the COMMENTING RULES Before Commenting! http://tamaratattles.com/commenting-rules/

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s