Saturday, April 13, 2013

Jodi Arias Trial: Jurors' Questions for Domestic Violence Expert

In Analytical Interviewing, we are careful in asking our questions, as we may teach someone how to lie if we introduce new wording.  Here, from Facebook, is the questions the jury had for the D/V expert, which indicate their thinking.   Please see the Facebook page:

We learn what they are thinking from the wording in their questions.  These are not the jurors from the Casey Anthony trial.

Do you honestly believe that hitting and kicking your parents is normal behaviour at any age? 

You keep saying that Jodi doesn’t match your definition of manipulative. Is it possible that your definition of manipulation differs from others?

You mentioned Travis was in a 7 year relationship with Deanna. Are you aware of anyone interviewing her to determine if she was a victim or survivor? Did you interview her?

Considering only the written conversations and journals can you say you saw an escalation?

If you were to only consider the written conversations and journals, excluding your interview with Jodi, did you see abuse?

Do you believe that Jodi was subjected to sexual degradation at the hands of Travis?

You say Jodi lies started after she killed Travis, how could you possibly know this?

Did you ever see evidence that Jodi was openly sharing all of her most private sexual details with her family and friends? Would you consider that deceptive?

Do you think it is deceptive for someone to not share the most private and intimate details of their lives, like their sexual activities, with their friends and family or do you consider it normal to keep those things private? If normal, why do you think Travis’ attempts to keep those things private was deceptive? 

Would you characterise your knowledge of June 4, 2008, as light or incomplete? Are you confused on any of the details of that afternoon?

Don't you believe that Travis making comments about a 12 year old girl while having a phone sex conversation with Jodi is fundamentally different to Travis allegedly masturbating to photos of young boys?

If a couple has an argument that takes all day to end can they still be in a healthy relationship? Would that type of argument indicate abuse? 
Is it possible for 2 people to be abusive to each other?

Can you explain what you mean by a burst of anger? Can a 10 or 20 minute rant be described as a burst? 

You stated that it’s more common for someone to have a burst of anger, then calm down. Is it possible that Travis' rants seem longer because they are viewed in text form? 

You stated that you have chosen not to take cases in the past because you did not believe an individual. Did you take this case, in part, because you believed Jodi? If you did not believe her, would you have chosen to turn it down? If you start out believing an individual, doesn’t that, by default, set up a prejudice?

You mention that stalking could fall under the abuse and battery columns in your continuum. If that is true, why is stalking excluded from those columns? Is your continuum incomplete? Why not list all appropriate bullet points for the appropriate column?

You told us that you like to meet with each individual before analysing the relationship. We have heard Jodi’s side of the story. Can you tell us Travis' side of the story? 

Who, from Jodi’s past did you intervieww that were able to rule out Jodi’s manipulative behaviour?
Do you have any evidence other than Jodi's word that Travis made her tear out pages and write only positive thoughts?

You testified why things could’ve supported her statements however, is it possible the incidents of abuse reported by Jodi were reported after the fact as a secondary gain to benefit her?

Can you explain how Jodi can remember physical abuse incidents so vividly but does not write anything, not even a reference to her feelings, in the journal?
You seem to believe that when the argument began bet. Jodi and Travis prior to the Havasupai trip that he called her upstairs to pursue an argument. How do you know he didn’t want to get the issue resolved and calm her and that he was embarrassed in front of the Freemans?

Regarding the text msg from Travis to Jodi where he is upset about her BS story from Michelle or Elaina, what exactly was the BS story that Jodi told Travis? Where did you get this info? You stated that Travis was lying in this message, how do you know this for sure? How can you know that Jodi's B.S. story was not a lie? [Not the subject but the actual story that was told.]

Speaking of blackmail and being threatened, are you aware if Jodi threatened Travis by saying she would let out that he was a paedophile? Does that mean anything to you. 

Is there a type of stalking that a person is comfortable around someone in person but are afraid of them or what they are capable of when they are not around?

What is the manifesto you referred to during your testimony?

Of the times you have testified in other cases, how many of these were in def. of men?

In all the evidence you reviewed, was there any indication anywhere of Travis claiming stalking by anyone else other than Jodi.

Did Travis discuss abuse of Jodi or any other women in his journal entries? 

Do you handle cases where the female is the abuser? 

How can you say that Jodi and Travis' relationship was abusive with no proof other than what’s on paper and Jodi's word?

Do you consider someone that says "no jury will ever convict me" to be a person with low self esteem?
When interviewing Jodi you claimed you did not asking leading questions. If someone asks a question that elicits a simple y/n response, would you consider that a leading question?
You said other sources said Jodi was not manipulative, who are these sources? 

How do you know tone, inside jokes etc if you cannot get both sides? 

Regarding non verbal communication, do you think that you can read through a string of text messages, emails etc between two people and know exactly what the non-verbal communication is?
Would your analysis of this relationship change if, hypothetically speaking, you found out the stories of Travis being violent and masturbating to children were made up?

Other than what Jodi has told you, in what other sources did you see evidence of physical violence by Travis?

Would you have adjusted your belief in the level of abuse if you had been given access to everything except the interviews with Jodi?

If you had been given access to everything except interviews with Jodi how would your opinion have varied, if at all?

How many men have you testified for in criminal court? 

How do you know Jodi received spider man underwear from Travis on Valentines day? Did you see them? Pictures? Or anything else?

Have you given her anything else? Have you ever had any physical contact with her? Hugs, friendly touching etc?

You bought Miss Arias books, apologized when meeting her and bought her a magazine subscription. Did you do anything else to establish a relationship with Miss Arias? 

Jodi went through Travis' emails, messages and inbox. Did you take any of that into consideration when making your assessment?

When Jodi went to confront Bianca, can't that be seen that she did it because she was jealous?

On the one side, we have demeaning multiple verbal slurs, a slap, a shove, a chokehold and a lunge perpetrated on Jodi. On the other, we have a gunshot to the head, a 4” deep slit throat and close to 30 stab wounds delivered by Jodi to Travis. Is not the perpetrator of the greatest domestic violence Jodi?
Answer : No

Please explain why you feel Jodi is not manipulative either before or after the killing based on the review of statements and interviews.


Ladyluck WI said...

Wow, I'm not thinking this is going to be Casey anthony jury. Ive been about a day or two behind listening to the testimony so this is the first i've seen most of these questions.

lol i just re-read the article again and that is the first comment you made too!

Ladyluck WI said...

Its bizarre to me, that the jury is allowed to ask these questions, but I love it! It just seems weird because the prosecution (and defense) has to be so particular about what they can ask but then almost anything goes with the jury. (i know there could be restrictions but this is so much more "prejudicial" for lack of better word) obviously they deserve to ask it, if that's what they're thinking. so it makes me very happy :)

Ladyluck WI said...

Also one thing I've been wondering about is the whole concept of how people tend to act/think in "social settings"

the jurors aren't allowed to talk to each other or anyone about this case. so hearing each other's questions might sway them to be more confident, one way or the other. lets pretend they start hearing a bunch of questions that are doubting the prosecution... would it cause some of the other juror's to question their confidence in the prosecution?

kind of like when theres bullying going on in public.. many people might turn away, join in, or not say anything. but if it was in a much more private setting they might do something different. understand what i'm trying to relate this to?

i just wonder what kind of influence this has on the jurors.

TrishapatK said...

It seems like the jurors are well aware of how unbalanced and unfair the "findings" of this domestic violence expert are.
I think that hearing the questions of the other jurors will help each of them to realize that their own doubts are valid and to highlight the many reasons that they have them. I'd imagine that it gets confusing after so much of it and even if it just plants seeds of doubt that could be enough render a not-guilty verdict.
The jurors seem to be the voice of reason, presented in a straightforward manner. The prosecution may have the same points made but it seems like the drama of it obscures some of the facts that need to be recognized. Having the jurors present questions like these helps to highlight common sense and use it as a reality check.

Anonymous said...

I'm not following this case and its corresponding trial but WOW the domestic violence "expert" must have flopped and flopped badly on the stand to trigger such a barrage of questions from the jurors.

The questions read like rhetorical slap downs of the "expert" LOL.


Juliette said...

This is a review I found posted for Ms LaViolette's book, : It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay.

I find it expresses an astute point of view, having heard Ms. LaViolette during Jodi Arias's trial; it echoes the way I feel about her defense of Jodi. I hope the jury for Jodi is formed by much brighter people than Casey Anthony's jury.

Here is the review:

5.0 out of 5 stars Alyce Laviolette Puts A New Perspective on Domestice Violence!,
April 5, 2013
By dodge1616This review is from: It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay (Paperback)
THANK YOU SO MUCH ALYCE LAVIOLETTE! It's so reassuring to know that I can stab someone 29 times, shoot them in their head, drag their body around their house a bit and you will testify on my behalf at my criminal trial with your expertise! I don't have to worry that I've slashed their tires not once but twice and stalked them repeatedly by peering in their windows at night, hacking into their facebook accounts, bank accounts, my space accounts and cellphone. I was so worried that id be in trouble when i snuck through a doggy door numerous times because i really thought someone might think i was "crossing some lines".

Thanks to you Alyce Laviolette I no long have to worry -- you've got my back! Its very reassuring! I only wish that I would have purchased your book sooner because all those other mean boyfriends I had in the past should have been dealt with as well! How dare any man call me a psycho and tell me that im crazy! I knew those were abusive words but you actually confirmed it for me! Thank you for seeing that I am the true victim here!!! You've taught me and any other woman who reads your book that only men are perpetrators and if they argue, raise their voice, get mad or try to withdraw from a relationship they are abusers! If they lie and ever manipulate any situation they are perpetrating domestic violence- Even though I never lived with the man I killed, only dated him 4+ months, maintained my own job and residence apart from his and actually drove over 1000 miles on our "last date" to visit him -- of course it's still domestic violence! people like me need your voice of reasoning!

For any WOMAN who wants to attempt to get away with murder for all the reasons Ive stated above, Alyce Laviolette's book will be extremely helpful to you. If you can't afford an attorney for your trial one will be appointed to you. If you can't afford Alyce Laviolette's expert testimony to assist your case, no problem, the taxpayers of your state will gladly fork out her $300.00 per hour fee. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU ALYCE LAVIOLETTE! Your book, values and beliefs have put a whole new face on Domestic Violence -

Ladyluck WI said...

calling someone a "psycho or sociopath" by either male or female, does not indicate "charactetr assassination" or "name calling to me"

to me, psycho or sociopath is a response, and trying to stand up for response to how you've been treated. its a lot different then trying to insult someone by saying theyre overweight or ugly or something

if you truly think about the context of sociopath/psycho "name calling" i think there's a story behind it being a response to someone's behavior

Ladyluck WI said...

Also, it might just be a good thing that the jurors that are left are predominantly male. why?
well women are a little biased when it comes to what we anticipate other women would do in a relationship. i think most women are the epathetic, motherly, type, etc..the people we are friends with. however, a man will have a much better idea that women like jodi exist..because think about it..women like jodi aren't friends with other women! we dont' interact with them..we just see them on occasion when we go to a restuarnat or a bar and of course there they are behind the counter. so men might be much more aware of these type

Anonymous said...

Ladyluck, I call my ex-husband a psychopath because I believe he is one. I don't say it to assassinate his character, it is what it is.

Ladyluck WI said...

yep, exactly.. why would the term sociopath come to mind unless it is in response to their behavior!!

JerseyJane said...

The defense must of had a hard time shopping for their 'expert witnesses'... I would love to know how many professionals were asked to be a part of the defense and declined. Hundreds, I assume. LoL

It seems like these 'expert witnesses' have something in common with Dr. Death Abortion Doctor out of Philly and the many quacks across the US that dish out pills from their revolving doors. It is called being at the end of your career and gobbling up as much cash as you can. Also, in this case, believing they will receive fame(good or bad). It's an easy million publishing a book on their involvement...

Trigger said...

This jury is asking relevant questions.

This seems to indicate that they are thinking about what Travis cannot reveal from his own mouth.

I'm impressed.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

It is the book that could finally shed light on one of the world’s most keenly followed murder investigations.

But Amanda Knox’s memoir will not appear on UK bookshelves, amid fears of legal action.

Knox served four years in an Italian jail for the 2007 murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia.

She and former boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito were freed on appeal in 2011, but last month Italy’s highest court dramatically ruled the pair must face retrial.

Knox, for now a free woman and living back in her hometown of Seattle, was due to release her memoir, Waiting to be Heard, on April 30.

She had been paid a reported $4million advance.

But UK publishers Harper Collins said after taking legal advice, the book will not be published here in the UK - although it will still be published in the U.S.

It is understood the memoir could attract legal action under the UK’s strict libel laws.

Knox has already been convicted of defaming her former boss, bar owner Patrick Lumumba, whom she accused of killing Meredith.

In a similar case, in January this year, the publication of a Scientology expose was cancelled in the UK. Publishers Transworld said, after taking legal advice, that the book was ‘not robust enough for the UK market.’
Last month the lawyer who set up Knox's multi-million dollar publishing deal hinted that the memoir contained major revelations, as he insisted publication would go ahead despite the re-trial ordered by Italy's highest court.
Robert Barnett said in an interview that certain aspects of the book would 'shock you to the core.'
The 25-year-old's first television interview, with ABC anchor Diane Sawyer, is also due to be broadcast on April 30.
Knox is said to have collapsed when she learned that she would face a retrial over the murder of Ms Kercher in a 2am phone call from her lawyer last month.
She will not voluntarily return to Italy to face trial, and is unlikely to be extradited by the U.S. As such she is expected to be tried in absentia

Judges in Rome's supreme court accepted there were 'contradictions' in the case, quashing the acquittals of Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 29.
The pair, both of whom spent four years behind bars in Italy before they were freed, were informed they must stand trial again for the murder of the 21-year-old student.

Ms Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey, was in Italy as an exchange student from Leeds University. She was found dead in 2007, in the cottage she shared with Knox in the picturesque hilltop town of Perugia.

Her throat had been slit and her semi-naked body had been covered with a duvet. After a lengthy trial in Perugia, Knox and Sollecito were convicted of the murder in December 2009 and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively,

But two years later the pair were freed after an appeal court found that the case had been botched and DNA evidence contaminated.

A third suspect, Rudy Guede, whose DNA and bloody footprints were found all over the crime scene, is serving a 16-year prison sentence, reduced from 30 years on appeal.

Tania Cadogan said...

The fact that Amanda Knox's memoir will hit the shelves in the U.S. as planned despite being pulled in the UK in light of her retrial is evidence of the vast divide between libel laws on either side of the pond.

The stringent nature of UK libel laws has led activists to campaign for changes to legislation they claim has a negative impact on freedom of expression.
Lawyers, publishers, bloggers, journalists and scientists are among those to point to the 'chilling effect' of current UK libel laws on legitimate publication, highlighting instances of 'libel tourism' - which sees wealthy individuals or corporations from overseas using the British courts to silence their critics.
Critics argue that existing English libel laws favour claimants - with the onus on the defendant to prove that they are innocent - and that the high cost of defending a libel action forces defendants to settle out of court even when they believe what they published was true.
In the U.S., in contrast, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Skeptical said...

I don't think LaViolette had a clear picture of how much this was going to cost her in terms of professional respect and book revenue. It is going to be hard to take her work seriously after this trial. She commented on the stand that she didn't have a great retirment package. I think she took this job for the money and overestmated her intelligence and her ability to outsmart the opposition and underestimated Juan Martinez. Perhaps she should have interviewed the three women already on Arizons'a death row to see who she was up against.

MizzMarple said...

Hobnob said...
off topic

It is the book that could finally shed light on one of the world’s most keenly followed murder investigations.

But Amanda Knox’s memoir will not appear on UK bookshelves, amid fears of legal action.


I am so glad you posted this, Hobnob !

I saw it on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website !

And if the US publishers are "smart" they will do the same thing -- which is NOT publish Knox's "book of lies."

Sollecito is being investigated right now ... and no doubt, the Italian prosecutors are keeping an eye on the publishing of Knox's book because under Italian Law, Knox is still a convicted felon !

Back to Topic :

THANKS, Peter, for posting the Arias' Jury Questions for the domestic violence "expert" !

I have to admit, I was "skeptical" of this jury because of their questions to various witnesses earlier in the trial.

But now, I do think this jury "gets it" -- Arias pre-meditated this murder and there was NO domestic violence or "self-defense" !

Tania Cadogan said...

It looks like the jury are asking all the right questions.

I like they are asking questions the prosecution can't ask or are overruled on.

The duhfence are going to struggle to get her found not guilty of capital 1 murder.
They look to be trying to get her acquitted of everything even though she admitted killing him.

Her duhfence witnesses have proved themselves a laughing stock, i didn't think anyone could come cloe to the drunkard one in athoney's trial. I was wrong.
laviolette (toilet on the caylee daily) is a car crash. it is clear she has feelings for the jodie ( encouraged no doubt by the jodie who uses everyone) it is clear she hates men (has she had a bad experience with one at some point in her life, did daddy refuse her a toy or something?) perhaps this is why she only takes cases where a woman is the defendant in a case against a man.

I do wonder if this trial and her responses can form an appeal for the other cases she has been in?

Child Advocate said...

It seems to me this jury saw through Alyce in Juanderland's testimony. In the world according to Alyce, men are bad and women are abused. I wonder how many men have lost their children due to Alyce's biased testimony.

Anonymous said...

This jury is asking relevant questions.

It's not that the questions are relevant

It's that the questions emanate hardcore ridicule and mockery and disgust towards the "expert's" testimony

The questions subliminally declare "you're not an expert, you're a lying quack"

elf said...

Jodi is like a black widow spider and needs to just be smooshed. That 'dr' is just jumping on a bandwagon. Pathetic. I hope Travis' family files a lawsuit against Jodi for personal damages after Jodi is sentanced.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Child Advocate said...

It seems to me this jury saw through Alyce in Juanderland's testimony. In the world according to Alyce, men are bad and women are abused. I wonder how many men have lost their children due to Alyce's biased testimony.
April 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Well said. I have much to add to this. It is why I struggled, initially, with Susan Murphy Milano, but then with a one hour phone call, I knew I had the genuine article.

I have seen too many deceptive affidavits where a woman was "helped" writing it by a D/V advocate only to later abandon the mother when her children were removed for allowing the monster back in.

Truth is always best.

veruca said...

Great post.
My opinion is that Travis was most def a narcissistic douche. I'm sure that he liked having a woman willing to please him sexually and go with whatever he wanted in the bedroom. I don't think he knew what the price to pay was going to be. Its sad his family and loved ones have to sit there and listen to the bullshit jodi tosses around. Shes a bad person in every sense of those words.
The woman laviolette is a sympathizing man hater.

Child Advocate said...

Truth is always best. If Alyce was telling the truth, she would have been able to answer yes or no questions. In trying to persuade, she released too many marbles. Including the fact that she doesn't have a retirement fund. Was that the marble that explained her biased testimony? Did she testify for the money to build up a retirement fund?

Ney said...

yes, it does look like the jury doesn't believe the expert. The questions also suggest ironic edge.
-do you honestly... - they're questioning her honesty
-you keep saying - they are critisizing her run on rambling
-how could you possibly know? -questioning her ability to get the info
- your knowledge light or incomplete?- telling she cannot possibly know
-prejudice - word used indicating they suspect prejudice from her part
-how can you say...with no proof? - questioning the way she made her conclusion
-Pictures? Or anything else?- pointing out she has no proof of her claims

This jury sees through on the dirty work the defense does.
My favorite question was about why laViolette keeps on looking at jodi and smiling at her. They picked up on the non-verbal sneakiness going on between the witness-jodi-defense team.
The best part is that soon the prosecutor will be up with his rebuttal case, to further reinforce the jury.
laViolette was a good example to follow for spotting deception in her statements. She dodged most of the yes or no questions, lots of non reliable denials.
Having said that, and knowing she did this volunterly, I still feel sorry for her. It was a huge mistake from her part to bring the public hate on herself for jodi, and she cannot undone it.

Anonymous said...

How did the D/V expert respond? Were the questions posed during the trial and answered on the witness stand?

BostonLady said...

I have been caught up in the Jodi Arias case and I was shocked at this witness's responses to the prosecutor's questions. The defense led her for 2 days on the stand and she answered like she was an expert on d/v but it was all generalities. When the prosecutor narrowed it down to the actual case, she would not answer the question. And I have learned here that when someone won't answer the question, it is sensitive. The prosecutor would ask a simple yes or no question and she refused to answer that way. She kept circling the answer. But she took it beyond that. If the prosecutor said "Do you find this person credible?" Alyce in Jodieland would say "Well, I would say I find this person believable". Umm isn't that the same thing? She was determined to control the prosecutor but that backfired badly.

Alyce in Jodieland was admonsished a few times by the judge to answer the question. Alyce at one point told the prosecutor if he was in her groups, he would get a time out. WHO does that in a murder trial?? The jury commented on her smiling at Jodie. This jury is not missing anything.

Alyce will most likely never be asked to be an expert witness ever again.

Anonymous said...

The jurists questions should have been asked by the prosecution.

Jen said...

Exactly BostonLady!

I've watched nearly every minute of this trial, I DVR it and then watch as I have time...this witness Laviolette made me furious., mostly because her 'style' of testimony is reminiscent of Jodi herself. She has no problem answering properly for the defense, but if the pros. asked her if the sky was blue..she would say, 'I wouldn't say that..I don't see it as just blue'. Its so annoying!

Like you said, the defense led her thru DAYS of general testimony and she gave example, after unrelated example, of her 'experience' with abusers and 'survivors'. When she finally spoke to the issue of Jodi and Travis, again she had no problem giving short concise responses for the defense. She spent less than 1 minute speaking about the actual murder that JODI committed, after about 5 days of smearing Travis' name, although she admits that physical abuse is not supported by ANYTHING accept JODI'S word.

Violettes purpose is little more than a mouthpiece to regurgitate Jodi's lies. Like I've commented before, I'm amazed that in this first degree murder, death penalty trial, the defense couldn't come up with an actual DOCTOR to lie for money! Probably because they all knew how ridiculous they would look trying to defend Jodi's actions by saying Travis talked ugly to her, and MAYBE slapped her around (according to a pathological liar/manipulator on trial for her life).

V's adversary responses to the Pros. are maddening. EVERY question he asks, she 'doesn't understand where he's going with this', or even told him a few times that she 'didn't see why it matters to him'! She refused to answer yes/no, even after the judge admonished her at least 10-15 times to 'answer only the question asked, with a yes or no, and dont offer any extra information'. She had the nerve to argue with the judge, saying 'it feels incomplete to answer that way'. The judge told her that the defense will question her again and give her a chance to clarify anything she wants , and she STILL refused EVERY question to answer yes/no. She's putting way too much energy into selling the idea that Travis abused Jodi, to appear an impartial expert. I think the jury is reflecting their frustration in her long, drawn-out display of nonsense. She could have easily given straightforward answers to the pros. questions and moved on days ago.

Some of the talking heads have been sympathetic, saying she didn't know what she was getting into, and this trial shouldn't overshadow her other which I say BS. She made a mockery of real victims of domestic violence, and she deserves the ridicule of the jurors and anyone else for selling out her 'expertise' to lie for a coldblooded murderer.

Jen said...

Hi Anon 3:28

Yes the questions were posed to Violette on the witness stand and she answered them under oath. I still have the shows saved on my recorder so I'll start posting the responses (or at least the answers she gave to the most pointed questions).

The best and most laughable response of them all was her one word response of 'NO', as to whether Jodi was the biggest perpetrator of violence in the relationship, based on her shooting Travis in the head, slitting his throat and stabbing him nearly 30times. (she only answered no after 3 longer answers that she tried to offer, which were stricken)

BostonLady said...

I agree Jen!! I was yelling at the tv, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. The prosecutor had to work so hard to get her to answer. On pretty much every question he backed her into the corner or declared her "non responsive". And like you pointed out, Alyce answered the questions asked by the defense without a problem. Smiling and lecturing the jury. I loved when Juan Martinez said "I'm over here, stop looking at the defense". He is great!

I did read that Alyce was the 11th choice for the defense to support their ridiculous idea of d/v. That tells us right there that Alyce had an agenda. And then she did reveal it when she said "I'm not really set up well for retirement" before she was cut off on one of the questions.

Alyce is making a bundle on this trial.

JerseyJane said...

Jen and BostonLady you ladies are so right!! I enjoy your insightful posts!!!!
It is amazing how Jodi and Alyce sound like bobsie twins down to the theory, their antics, and the answering of the prosecutors questions. Jodi had since 2011 to memorize her scenerio of what happened and was able to tailor her story to match up with Alyce's indicators of domestic violence. I'm sure Jodi researched Alyce V. before she met up with her in the jail setting.(even if people on outside got her book first! LoL)... That's how stupid that expert is!....Alyce is also dragging it out for the almighty dollar!!

Jen said...

Hi BostonLady

I'm glad I wasn't the only one yelling at the TV, lol! My husband walked into the room the other night and asked, 'why are you watching that if it's making you so upset'?

I've come this far, and I want to see the look on that lying murderer's, psycho face when she gets the death penalty! (fingers crossed)

I caught that same comment on V's retirement fund, but I'm pretty sure this trial has helped her out with that. Just doing the basic math on her face-to-face visiting Jodi hours ($250 hr x 44 hrs= $11,000) and her courtroom time ($300 x 8 hr day for 10 days?= $24,000. She's pocketing a minimum $35,000 of tax payer funds, not to mention how many more hours she charged at $250 hr for reading the journals, text messages, and other 'collateral' sources to form her 'expert' opinion. Sickening!

Jen said...

Hi JerseyJane

I've wondered the same thing about this 'expert' Violette dragging her feet to pad her pay check. The defense has asked her the exact same questions 3 times over now-on direct, re- direct and now re-direct post juror questions...and she answers them exactly the same way each time for the defense. Then when the Pros. tries to address the same issue she is baffled...' I'm not sure I said that'...etc.

I think the defense was getting themselves into a dangerous area yesterday during their re-direct AFTER the juror questions. The female defense attorney was very argumentative while going thru the juror questions one-by-one and arguing the defense point-of-view. She was speaking really fast and sort of sarcastically, throwing in slang terms like 'while Jodi was being slapped around by Travis, and choked..isn't that something she would remember without writing it down' (in response to a juror question 'if Jodi's stories of abuse were true, why didn't she write anything, even feelings in her journal'). Bad idea in my opinion, the jury is clearly skeptical of Jodi's story and manipulative nature. It seems by their questions, like they believe she lied about the abuse, so acting lie the jurors are stupid for questioning these things isn't a good idea.

Anonymous said...

One could make the case that the questions mean practically nothing if they're all coming from a handful of jurors.

Anonymous said...

Meh...I don't see that.
But..who knows.

Anonymous said...

I don't hear seventeen different writers.

sidewalk super said...

I'm trusting that "Mr. Martinez" will be exposing more of violettes disgusting sell-out on his way to convicting that killer nut job.

I'm over here for Mr. Martinez!

Jen said...

Hi anon 8:12

One of the pundits said they have seen all of the jurors placing questions in the box at one time or another.

Even if only some (say half) of the jurors are the ones currently writing the questions, it's still likely that the other half are basically on the same page, considering they have all watched the same trial and have the same evidence to consider. Jodi admits that she killed Travis, and her defense hasn't offered anything to persuade she was justified in the force and brutality she used...even if one were to believe every word she said about prior abuse, it comes nowhere close to justifying what she did.

Jodi herself claims that the threat against her life (the pronouns-less declaration of 'kill you bitch' on June 4) was said by Travis AFTER she had already shot him! So at that point HIS actions were in SELF DEFENSE, since she introduced the deadly weapon into the altercation (if you believe her ridiculous story).

In my opinion, there's little to debate about her guilt (of 1st degree murder, w/premeditation). She stole the gun, borrowed money 'to get to Travis',(according to the lender) rented a car and dyed her hair to disguise herself, took the plates off the car, used the gas cans to conceal her presence in AZ, and turned off her phone BEFORE heading to Mesa so she couldn't be placed anywhere near there by cell, she engaged in an elaborate cover-up post murder! All the defense can do is try to save her life, but her current behavior is still abhorrent. She lies about the man she slaughtered and acts like a defiant child while she's on trial for her life.

She has NO redeemable qualities that I can discern. She's tweeting insults about the Pros., rolling her eyes and flipping off the camera in a very obvious deliberate way (how often do YOU scratch your neck and chin with only your middle finger fully extended, and your other fingers folded under). She STILL displays the same self-centered, psycho demeanor that so many have commented on, by finding a way to continue her victimization of the Alexander family from jail, DURING his murder trial! (by tweeting 'after all she been thru, it's amazing she's not gay')

She has not learned or grown in any way. She is in jail for murder, yet she bad mouths her victim, her mom, dad, sister, non-active members of the church, etc. Yeah, I guess they should all be more like Jodi...she has EVERYTHING figured out!

deb said...

3rd pic down, look at those pics on the wall ... interesting

JerseyJane said...

Great post, Jen:-)
The creepiest moment for me during the trial was when the Floras interview tapes were playing. Jodi was all into watching them, almost hypnotized by them. It was a split screen and almost every movement that the "video" Jodi did; the 'courtroom Jodi' did AT THE SAME TIME.. . It was surreal..
I remember thinking, " OMG the boogieman is ALIVE!! That monster is in her, it's REAL... She can't hide it!!" it took me back to being a kid, sitting in a recliner watching old vampire movies as I covered my own neck. I felt that same fear from back then... I think Travis got many glimpses of this in Jodi. It's a strangeness in a weird way. Just like when JM shocked her for the first time on stand. Jodies head tilted with a Stepford Wife look in her eyes... Just a complete utter strangeness that surfaces with her.

Lis said...

It's very heartening to see a jury that can think!

Colleen said...

I've read 11 of the 16 chosen for jurors and alternates are men. Even if ALV is one of the most biased "man haters" out there, you'd think that some common sense would kick in and she'd tone down her "men are almost always the abusers" BS.

Both this witness and the defendant are devoid of integrity and have no hesitation taking an oath on the bible and then spewing one lie after another.

It seems the defendant found the expert witness she so richly deserves -- one that may outrage the jurors enough to give her the death penalty.


The judge ordered ALV back to court next week (under protest).

Speculation is that Juan Martinez may be bringing her back for impeachment and prove perjury.

Maybe she and Jodi can be roomies.

Colleen said...

I have a trial question that's been driving me crazy.

Has there been any testimony as to when or where Jodi dyed her hair?

The car rental agent said that when she rented the car, June 2, I think, she was still a blonde. When he identified her from mugshots, she was brunette.

MizzMarple said...

Anonymous said...
The jurists questions should have been asked by the prosecution.

April 13, 2013 at 5:25 PM


The Proseuctor is limited by the rules of evidence and the rules of law as to what questions he can ask a witness ...

Martinez knows what he can ask, and what he cannot ask ...

BUT the jurors are NOT limited -- and Martinez knows this !

There is a method to his madness, and I think it is FANTASTIC !

MizzMarple said...

Colleen said...

I have a trial question that's been driving me crazy.

Has there been any testimony as to when or where Jodi dyed her hair?

The car rental agent said that when she rented the car, June 2, I think, she was still a blonde. When he identified her from mugshots, she was brunette.


There has been no testimony as to when and where Jodi died her hair.

And yes, the car rental guy said she was a "blonde" when she rented the car, but when she showed up in Utah, she was a "brunette."

I am trying to remember -- but I think Jodi testified that she went to have her "nails manicured" on the way to Arizona -- speculation is that maybe she had her hair done at that place. I am sure the investigators and prosecutor checked this out.

I think that is one of those details we will never know the truth about.

sidewalk super said...

To Deb,
Those pics on the wall are bodies?, parts of bodies?
Is this the guy who lived in a trailer home with his mother? When jodi left her parents after the pot bust? Is his mother available to talk to?
You know, that looks like a lot of makeup on that guy.....

Ladyluck WI said...

As far as the dye job goes i think it really could be a misinterpretation of people's opinions. I thought in the beginning she dyed her hair as part of this plot..but now i'm not so sure. it seems like the hair is the one thing she is adamant about and i have to say i do believe her. why? well.. it has happened to me my whole life. I have a medium/light brown hair color. especially in the summer it looks very light and people often refer to me as blonde. growing up though, i always thought of myself as "brunette" even though now that I"m older I see the difference in a brunette such as jodi and my hair color. anyways, to go along with that i also bleached my hair blonde the past several years. and the way jodi described trying to dye her hair back..same exact thing happened to me. your hair is so damaged that it won't retain any moisture or new dye hardly. the first time i tried to dye my hair brunette it didn't take either... i ended up dying it again a couple months later after it had time to heal a little more, still didn't take fully. I haven't dyed it since and I still have a blonde undertone to my hair.

peoples opinions on what is blonde/brunette can vary..especially if there is a some highlights in there as well. aso from my experience, people of a hispanic culture or other cultures with primarily dark hair are more apt to call someone with lighter hair "blonde" even if its not the "bleach blonde" absence of color

Anonymous said...

"One of the pundits said they have seen all of the jurors placing questions in the box at one time or another."

And another TH and the word from the courtroom reporters on WS is that only half of the jurors are putting questions in the basket.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it means anything, but Alyce LaViolette's Psychological Assistant license was cancelled years ago.
It doesn't explain why it happened, but here is the link I read this from:$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=10905&P_LTE_ID=724

sidewalk super said...

.....There's that picture of the white coated ferret in the winter snow, leaving behind little red drops as it successfully hunts.....
National Geographic films as interpreted by sidewalk...

Her license was cancelled?
Martinez is gonna have a field day!

sha said...

It didn't make any sense to me when Alyce said that it's normal for a woman who suffers from extreme abuse (violence, punching, broken bones etc.) and she is believed when she says she's afraid of her male partner even though she keeps going back to him and sleeping with him......but that Travis couldn't have been afraid of Jodi because he sometimes went back to her. SO OBVIOUSLY a double standard, it makes Alyce look like an idiot.

deb said...

@ sidewalk..
the pics look like nudes. Seems her tastes were the same even at an this age

Rose said...

I don't understand why everyone thinks the Casey Anthony jury was so stupid. They charged her with FIRST DEGREE MURDER and yet they could not prove how the victim died! The jury really had no choice but to acquit her. If you want to blame anyone for the bad outcome of that trial, then blame the prosecutor who overcharged, but do not blame the jury. There was no way, based upon the evidence, any reasonable jury could have convicted the accused of first degree murder. There was plenty of reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was an accident. Do I think that Casey Anthony was 100% responsible for the death of her daughter? Absolutely. Do I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was first degree murder? Hell no. I am relieved by the Casey Anthony verdict. It shows that jurors are still following the law, and it also shows that people do not take the death penalty lightly.

Anonymous said...

About the hair dye, I remember seeing in the police interviews where the detective says neighbours of Travis remember her coming to his house at the time he was killed, and she goes something like 'That's not possible, I was platinum blonde when i met neighbours"...She definitely dyed it to evade recognition, imho.

Unknown said...


I believe I read on the NG show transcripts it was determined that there was a "blood-like" substance in the rental vehicle JA was driving on that fateful trip, after it was turned in.
They originally thought it was kool-aid. It was later determined to be hair dye.
So she was dying her hair as she was driving??!

Most Sincerely,

Unknown said...

@ ROSE - "There was plenty of reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was an accident. Do I think that Casey Anthony was 100% responsible for the death of her daughter? Absolutely. Do I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was first degree murder? Hell no."




Rose said...

@ Meag:

I do not think that most charges would have been sufficient, actually. The prosecution was not able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, how Caylee even died! There was no justice for Caylee, but that is not because the jury is stupid, it is because our legal system requires that the prosecution proves each element of a crime before a person can be convicted. It is a high standard, and thank GOD it is. Our system does not guarantee a fair outcome - that would be impossible. We are not omnipotent gods who know all. We are human beings, and as human beings we can only make the process itself fair. I know this is sort of hard for people to accept. This truth will mean that some "guilty" people go free and that some innocent people will be convicted. Unfortunately it is the best system that we, as human beings, can have.

Casey Anthony is a very scummy person, and no doubt was involved in the death of her daughter. Sadly there was no way to prove how Caylee died, which means it is nearly impossible to prove that she was murdered, or died accidentally. Thus, the jury had to acquit. You should be GRATEFUL for this outcome. It confirms that if YOU were charged with a serious crime, which could cost you your life, the prosecution would have to PROVE each element of the crime. The prosecution in the C.A. case could not do this. Does it suck? Yes, of course. Was the jury stupid? Nope, they were merely following the law.

Colleen said...

Thanks to everyone who answered about the hair dye. I definitely think this was part of the premeditation. If one of Travis' neighbors saw her, she wanted to make sure she wasn't recognized.

To Meag:

Thank you for the info on the hair dye in the car. I can't help but laugh thinking of this crazy woman dying her hair while driving, while rinsing it off with her Costco water.

Anonymous said...

I'm the admin of the State page from which you copied these questions. In my post, I asked for sites to link back to the page, not c&p verbatim.



Anonymous said...

Not οnly is сuсumber soothing tο your skin, іt
is puгported to rеduсe wrinklеs.

Tο be hοnest, you cannot expeсt the bi-weekly
use οf a menѕ hyԁrating faсial mask tο make all the diffеrеncе.
Nourіshing and hydrаting maѕks cоntаin soοthіng moіsturisіng
ingredients whiсh hуԁrate the skin lеavіng it ѕoft and ѕmooth.

Ѕtop by my webρage :: diy facial masks

Anonymous said...

To be honest it was hard to sit and lesson to this supposed expert trash a brutal murder as Loviolette did. Then called this murder an event.
Groups and events who think of hiring her to come to talk and give some real insight should reconsider this idea. She is a self appointed expert. I would have nothing to do with her and certainly not read a book she was putting out there for the viewers to hear.
She should be ashamed to pur herself in the catagory to help abrusive women. Experts and higher experts said she was not one.
Maybe she should retire and go home. It certainly sounded very bias and would skirt questions and not answer questions when asked. The only time she would ramble and go on was to talk about herself and how much she knew and "oh yea", let us not forget the years and years and years of experience.
What a hipocrite she seemed to be.
And to think she lied to the court and to the jury.
Mr. Martinez had it right, her report was defective.
Womens rights should react to this because she did not do you any favors.

Anonymous said...

Good fіsh sourceѕ: salmon and ѕalmon oil,
sardines, anсhoviеs. Additіon
of Eѕsential Foods to a Diet: Еven though anti aging Skin Care
products haѵe been boosted by а pеοple's desire to look younger, it is imperative to have an overall health to maintain a clear skin health. It's been said over аnd
over аgаin, that water is essential to gooԁ hеalth.

Anonymous said...

сoating, thе thіckness of only 50 mіcrons, since the
еlectrical. whilе the bearing to provіԁe a гegular efficiеnсy, tуpiсаl devices.
Mаterialѕ with the FAG rolling bearings The perform effіcіеncy fгom thе FАG rolling beагingѕ
depenԁѕ to some fantаstіc еxtent wіthіn the substаncе qualitіes.

mу pagе Nsk Self-Aligning Ball Bearings

Anonymous said...

present, Fгanke Сompany is establishing new mаkes use of for thiѕ kind of a naгrow bearing.
In his final months, Eddie woulԁ become #1 contender
for the World Ηeavyweight Ϲhаmρionshiр ωhich was helԁ by Batistа at
the timе. He felt liκe he did not totallу belong hеre, he was not
as in contгol as he wanted to bе, but rather he felt lіke а fifth wheel.

my wеbpage FAG Tapered Roller Bearings

Anonymous said...

Мenopausаl women exρeriеnce
hormοnal imbаlance due to the changes the body
is undеrgoing. But remember that no theгapy is 100% effective fοr every single pеrson.
Thе tan might look good for a littlе time, but with age, thе damagеs would сοme to the ѕurface,
and іt would not be a vеrу pretty ρicture.

Also visit my blog: skin care

Anonymous said...

The ρresѕ ωas quick to picκ up the FBӀ gauntlеt, ѕpгeading the informatіon сlaimed by Cuгtis' ex-wife and others across all forms of media. The next seasons, Reutimann ran seven Busch races for NEMCO. The XT Coupe hood was far too low for that to work.

Here is my site; NTN Spherical Roller Bearings

Anonymous said...

Ѕpinning bearings tуpically ԁescгibe pеrformаncе
ωhеn you are loοkіng аt thе produсts DN where
D may function as diametеr (frequеntly in mm) fгom the actuаl bearing anԁ N
mаy arе the rotation гatе in rеvolutions eaсh and eveгy mіnute - Hеnry Timκen , а 1800s
visionarу and іnnoѵatoг in carrіage mаnufаcturіng, patеntеԁ thе
tapered curlеr bearing, in 1898. аnԁ cylіndrical rolleг beaгing are all iԁeal foг high-spеed
wогkіng. In the eνent the
inјuгy ѕyndromе is locateԁ about
the oil sеаling аnd bordeгing compοnents οf NSК bеаringѕ, thiѕ kіnd оf itеm must get rеplаced.

my wеb-site; NTN Spherical Roller Bearings

Anonymous said...

FAG generаllу uѕes thе loωеr alloу аnd total quenchіng
chrome of higher ρurity since the componеntѕ to
manufacture bearing collar аnd гοlling.

Sіngle-гоw tapeгed rollеr Τіmken beаrings: thе single-rоw beaгіng
іs among the most ѕimρle taρereԁ bеагingѕ with ωіdest use.

Ιn additіon, it hаs a lοng seгvіce lifе anԁ геducеd temρeгatuгe.

Feel fгее to viѕit my blog
рost ... TIMKEN Tapered Roller Bearings

Anonymous said...

Skin nеeds сonѕtant cleaning, anԁ that's exactly why we take a bath, or at least a shower, everyday. This is the age when the first signs of aging begin to appear. However, consistent use of products with these kind of ingredients can speed up the overall aging process of your skin because it damages and thins out the natural outer layer of your skin.

Here is my web blog; skin care

Anonymous said...

Within the FAG bearing functionality tablet, there's limit speed and unlimited reference speed by standards, namely, the bearing rotation limit to contact seal. Accordingly, at the time of bearing assembly, the processes of washing, degreasing, and greasing are not required. If you do not have a caliper, a reliable steel ruler would be sufficient enough.

Check out my webpage ntn tapered Roller Bearings

Anonymous said...

Cocktail ԁresses or cocktаil gowns were worn by woman at сocktail parties.

You prοbably have a distinсt physique as compаred to
her. Of coursе, they will not be аdmitteԁ tо weаr thе same ѕuit for another occasion.

my wеb blog: maurices prom dresses

Dick and Lenay said...

Hello. This is Dick and Lenay saying
I am a cancer survivor and a domestic abuse survivor. I have three sons, two of whom have juvenile diabetes. I have worked in the healthcare industry in some capacity for the past 30 years and as an entrepreneur. I am now combining my passion for both fields in this blog with a goal to provide helpful information on health, wellness, stress and internet marketing. My bigger goal is to help fund a cure for juvenile diabetes. - See more at: About Us For A Natural Approach To Health .
We are said to all friend, will get more Healthy tips just follow bellow
living with
vitamins minerals
swollen ankles
swollen feet
fatigueliving with