Alyce LaViolette Tells A Reporter Why She Will Not Be Testifying in the Retrial of Jodi Arias

In case you missed today’s interview with Alyce LaViolette, I am posting it below. I am working on an article about the interview that should be posted in the near future.

91 thoughts on “Alyce LaViolette Tells A Reporter Why She Will Not Be Testifying in the Retrial of Jodi Arias

  1. Absolutely no reason for death threats against Alyce! Writing reviews on Amazon is different. If you say her book is bad, and you haven’t read it, that’s not fair. If you give a review based on the biased opinions she has expressed, and you state that in your review, it’s fair. She wasn’t credible in her accessment of Jodi. Alyce either got it wrong, or she lied. Either way, she should admit she isn’t expert material. There wasn’t one shred of evidence that Jodi was abused by Travis. If Alyce really wanted to know the truth, she would have asked people that knew both of them. The only reason she wouldn’t have asked, would be because she knew what the answers would be, and it would destroy her testimony. I can’t believe the defense attorneys would ask her back to testify. It was an embarrassment the first time, and this time it would be worse than awful.

  2. This woman who thinks she is the smartest thing on two legs dont get it..
    She received HATE mail because she thought her words were stronger than GOD’s..She lied on the witness stand and THOUGHT people were stupid enough to “buy” into them like her “seminars”.
    She got caught,more than likely destroyed her career…that is the reason she will not be back as a witness

  3. I saw ALV’s interview and I have to say this is one very unprofessional woman. She broke down on national television and, if she is that emotional, she should have never granted an interview at all. How on earth can a professional counselor help anybody get control of and manage her life when the adviser can’t manage her own life? Now I truly understand what the words “Hot Mess” really mean.

    I did not feel sorry for her when she cried. Not one bit. Instead, I was horrified. It only confirmed my belief that she is way past her expiration date in her style and methods, and she is not a solid ‘therapist’. She needs to work on herself, not anybody else, and she was way over her head when she got involved in the Jodi case. Yet she drove up to the witness stand on a bulldozer and imagined she was going to be in full command of the courtroom. I was reminded of a peacock presenting its feathers. For someone who claimed she testified many times, she sure didn’t comprehend the process of cross-examination. In fact, it appeared as though she expected everyone to sit down, listen, and shut up while she dropped her pearls and amusing seminar one-liners upon the court. She thought she was doing another seminar, where the presenter stands in front of everyone else and is held in awe. She even brought her own Peanut Gallery of fans to sit in the “stands”. Really, she is clearly a B Stringer today, and she somehow imagined this trial was going to make her famous. Really Famous. This accounts for her smug All-Knowing demeanor on the stand – she imagined herself the Star Of The Show who was going to be so sought after in the future that she would barely be able to keep up with the adulation (and income!). To top it all off, her hatred of men was beyond obvious. She embarrassed herself and everyone else and here she is whining about it besides.

    Secondly, it doubly angered me that she sat there in that interview and said we have to do something about the media discussing cases like Jodi’s, and then she had the audacity to imply that Jodi didn’t have a fair trial. That is raw BS, just like pretty much everything else she testified to. This is a ‘professional’ who took the word of a pathological liar who met with her and told her a story that was proved to be a bald-faced lie. How on earth could she possibly imagine that she accurately assessed a killer who brought a fantasy story with her to their meeting?

    Between her bursts into tears, she read the threats she received as a result of CHOOSING to open a Twitter account during her testimony (after all, she was famous now!). The threats that so disturbed her, this “professional” counselor, included infantile remarks such as, “I hope you choke on a chicken bone”. She says she won’t testify because she’s afraid, but she has no problem blabbing her opinion again on national television. No irony there, right? Ah well, no cross-examination, I guess.

    If Alyce LaViolette is crying, she’s crying because she expected fame and got the Laughing Stock Award. She came to play hardball in court and ended up crying like a mental infant. I am reminded of that movie, “League of Their Own,” when Hanks tells the women, “There’s no crying in baseball!”. Where I come from, this whiner would have been shown to the lobby. Waaaaaaaaaah, Alyce, Waaaaaaaaahhhhh.

  4. Alyce was not credible at all. Many of the things she called abuse were instigated and performed by Jodi Arias of her own free will. She should be humiliated for trying to make Travis an monster as well as a pedophile when he can not speak for himself and on the word of a pathological liar. I don’t condone death threats if in fact they are real. She was bought and paid for by the defense and she was going to say whatever they wanted her to and Juan Martinez just showed what a liar she is. I wouldn’t doubt in the custody cases she had been involved in she did the same thing for what ever side called on her for an opinion. The magnitude of this case required an in depth psychological evaluation. What she and Samauels and Gefner did was a mockery. Every honest and psychiatrist/psychologist should be not only offended by them but embarassed. for them and seek to bring them scam artists up for mal practice or censure.

  5. Hard to believe this whining ALV interview got air time. Looks like it has the earmarks of another desperate defense ploy by giving dotard LaViolette a media forum to let the public in on why she can’t be a defense witness at the Arias penalty phase . It is really to damn dangerous for her (and he family.) Considering all the scamming and lies by the defense, and the motions arriving for the judge to rule on – a week or so before today’s court review. Sounds like Arias is busy with ideas & suggestions. ?

  6. Uppity, I believe you have pretty well nailed ALV here.
    LV destroyed her own credibility when she decided to join in the chorus with Arias that the victim was the abuser in this case. What reliable, responsible, thinking professional would rely on the word of a consummate liar and manipulator such as Arias, and then want to go in and bat for her? She allowed her biases to completely override her judgement.
    Arias subjected Travis to the horrendous end of having his throat cut, and then delivered the second coup-de-grace in court by declaring him a violent physical and mental abuser – and, to top it all off, a paedophile. For ALV to support her in her vile accusations and character assassination, destroyed any semblance of reputation/ integrity she may previously have had. To ‘take on’ the prosecutor to seemingly entertain her gallery of supporters was another of her poor judgements.
    It is difficult to comprehend ALV’s motives in this case other than a desire for five minutes of fame and, of course, the almighty dollar. It is also difficult to feel any sympathy for her. That she made a total fool of herself and disgraced her profession was all of her own doing.
    ALV made her own bed – now she must lie in it.

  7. One has to wonder why LaViolette agreed to an interview in the first place.
    She could have easily just refused commenting on whether she would
    come back to testify during the penalty phase. She brought her personal life
    into the interview by crying about the backlash and once again diminished
    her credibility and professionalism. Honestly,I have to wonder if she is
    providing her clients with the best advice and help that they deserve
    when seeking a therapist.

    • Chris, I don’t wonder if she is giving good advice to her clients. If what we saw on the stand is typical of her, she is not giving good advice to anybody. If she has been successful in her occupation, I am thinking she has bluffed and bullied her way to success. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened.

      • Nance, I deal with “experts” like her in child custody cases all the time. They come in with preexisting dogmas, looking for proof that either the mom is a liar for alleging abuse or conversely that dad is an abuser. Experts who live by a secular religion. What makes me so angry about Laviolette is knowing how many child custody cases she has testified in. Since she’s not even trained in forensic evaluations, what she brings is only her prejudices. The only reason she would be a child custody evaluator would be in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. Imagine being a man, divorcing a volatile woman like Jodi, expecting a fair minded child custody expert will see the truth and then getting Alyce instead.

        In family law cases there is no spotlight, no one is watching. Only the judge, usually mesmerized by the allure that this is an “expert” and the security that the case won’t be overturned on appeal if the court follows her recommendations. I’m sure she’s done great harm to children and their parents.

        When I think about the real grief fathers and children may feel after her child custody evaluations… determining a father is an abuser, the child should not have normal contact with dad, he should not have shared custody, or worse, should undergo domestic violence therapy before he can see his children, and mom is completely innocent of what dad alleges about her behavior…. When you think about how children cry when unfairly separated from a parent or how a parent might cry when unfairly deemed an abuser, Alyce’s tears do not move me. SHE DESERVES TO CRY. She needs to experience for once how hard it is to have people JUDGE her without the full picture. She should start grieving and taking a hard look at how her closed minded beliefs have done harm.

        • You are right on the mark Maria. That is the first thing I thought of when LaViolette told Mr. Martinez she would give him a time out. She is a bully and relishes being in control. After she made the “are you angry with me Mr. Martinez” comment, then gives the gallery a big grin, how childish. I wonder how many lives and families she destroyed by convincing families and courts of the “abuse” the “men” inflicted on their families. I cried (for others, not myself) long before LaViolette did.

          • Thanks Laurica. Isn’t this the truth! A bully! That’s how they treat people during custody evaluations, triggering them to panic and then using their panic as evidence of whatever the evaluator wanted to pin on them. I’ve cried for others too. That smirk of hers got its just reward.

          • Good post, Laurica. I find her to have a bully personality. I doubt that she has done good work. If she is one of those people who have to be in control, it is all about her wishes, not about much else. I really would like to see someone look at her recommendations in family court and see how much good work she has done. I still remember during her testimony how she would look at someone or something to her left after each answer to Juan’s questions. It was so creepy. I have often wondered what she was doing – looking for approval for Jodi? I also think she would look over to the left before she answered maybe. I did wonder if she was getting some sort of instruction from Jodi or the defense on whether to answer or fight. Did anybody else notice this? I didn’t see anybody else do this during the trial but it was blatant with her.

          • I also think Nurmi was sending signals like for her to elaborate or continue with a question or for that matter just to stop since she liked to ramble.

            I think Alyce was confused from the start. I remember at first she sounded like she was with the prosecution until a long weekend or break then she came back all for the defense. She must have gotten scolded.

          • Yes, I noticed. And one of Juan’s best moments was when he caught her doing it–he moved sharply to the right, and called out, “Ma’am, I’m OVER HERE!! You keep looking to the left.” One of the jurors asked Laviolette in a question why she keeps looking at Jodi and smiling at her. I wish I could find Juan’s brilliant move in the video. I laughed my head off. (If I do, I’ll post it later.)

          • OMG I forgot about that remark. Yes she did look at Jody and I think it was to show her she was on her side and get Jodi’s approval. She thought she was much brighter then Juan.

          • Thanks I am LMAO about as good as telling Juan she would give him a time out. It did make me sick looking again at A.V. and Arias.

    • She probably gave ther interview at the urging of the defense to support their death threat documents/recent motions. Most likely paid. I also think her attitude in trial was because she was sure she would be convincing to sway the jury and follow that up with a book if Jodi was aquitted. There was no other reason for either her behavior and disrespect at trial and this tear jerking interview. She has grandiose thoughts just like Jodi and they fell apart with the conviction because she made an ass of herself. Her family probably doesn’t want to be embarassed further so told her not to do it.

      A chicken bone? oooh scared of chickens….get real..

  8. Oh the humanity! This poor empathic soul just can’t understand why people hate Jodi, someone they don’t even know. Pass the Kleenex.

    I’m no fan of ALV however I’m one who has been known to make excuses for her bogus “evaluation” of JA. I had been willing to give ALV the benefit of the doubt at having been duped by the defense as a result of (1) JA being a pathological liar, (2) restrictions on the scope of the evaluation imposed by JA’s attorneys, and (3) the inability to interview friends and family of TA. I honestly believed she would soon discover the truth and admit her errors. But noooo. This interview may have been intended to evoke sympathy but, instead, all it did was reignite public outrage.

    She’s still proud of her work in this case?! She points to the fact she persuaded the jury foreman as validation of her conclusions?! Are you kidding me?!

    This woman seriously needs a reality check because SHE is the one who doesn’t know Jodi.

    • Linda K, do you really think the attorneys wouldn’t allow her to do an honest professional evaluation? I think they were all in cahoots to make up stories to tell the jury. I really do. And what was the reason she gave that she didn’t contact anybody else, that she only spoke with Jodi? I can’t remember. Anyway I seriously believe they were all involved in coming up with the stories of Travis being a pediophile, an abuser, and remember Vilette saying several times about seeing the pattern of these things, that way she was able to tell that he was abusing Jodi and I think she suggests that he was a pedophile because of the ‘patterns’ that Jodi told her about and whatever data she read. She is not at all to be believed in my opinion – Vilette is who I am talking about, although we all know Jodi is a liar too. Remember when a jury question asked which was worse – Jodi’s abuse or Travis’ slaugter? Her answer – Jodi’s abuse by Travis was worse. I was stunned that she would go that far. This was a time for her to bully her way into trying to manipulate the jury and sadly she clearly was able to convince the jury foreman. I wonder what he was thinking with. At least he was able to vote guilty of murder and that was probably a lucky break for justice. I am really wanting to read Dr. R’s posting on this Vilette person. And I am so glad I am not the only one who finds Vilette reprehensible.

      • @Nance,

        …do you really think the attorneys wouldn’t allow her to do an honest professional evaluation?

        We know from her testimony that she relied on specific things to perform her evaluation: Jodi’s journals; text and email messages; the reports of Drs. Samuels, Karp [?sp] and DeMarte; and the infamous 44 hours of interviews with Jodi herself. On cross-examination, she stated she was “not allowed” to interview anyone else. For the most part, this is a legal issue which I’m sure Maria can explain much better than I can. But it’s not inconceivable certain, pertinent information was withheld from her in order to achieve the desired evaluation.

        I agree with dcsmyth1 who wrote:

        She is not an ogre, or horrible person. She is an average person who got herself in a situation that was too much for her to handle properly. She does deserve every last criticism of her competence in this particular arena and probably some questioning of her ethics.

        • Thank you for bringing up the info on what ALV based her opinions. I had forgotten.
          44 hours with a liar and then her liar’s journals and then being told she could not interview anyone else. Agreed, this is a legal issue but she was fed the info that Arias wanted her to have and make no mistake – this was all orchestrated by Arias.
          Anyway, I believe she is a broken woman who is making a last ditch effort to save herself. Too bad it is in the same arena.

        • Linda, its true she could not interview other people. But a good expert has a methodology for collecting the relevant information they need. They don’t depend on the defense to spoon feed only what they want. They ask for everything that is related to the issue, and explain what they mean by that. She also had access to Jodi’s UNBELIEVABLE media interviews (48 Hours, the news conference she called at the jail, the Inside Edition interview, etc.) How could she not see the convenient way Jodi suddenly claimed domestic abuse only after Dr. Samuel’s said he wasn’t buying the ninja story?

          I don’t believe Jodi conned ALyce so much as ALyce walked into the case as another opportunity to confirm her own delusional cult-like dogmas and Jodi was the beneficiary. In other words, I don’t think Alyce based her opinion on what Jodi said to her so much as she walked in and told Jodi first, “you’re a victim of domestic violence.” Jodi filled in the details to support it.

          I love “the infamous 44 hours of interviews.” :)

          • @Maria, you wrote:

            I don’t think Alyce based her opinion on what Jodi said to her so much as she walked in and told Jodi first, “you’re a victim of domestic violence.” Jodi filled in the details to support it.

            When you lock an ideologue and a chameleon in a room, alone together, for 44 hours… well… what else would you expect to happen? LOL

            One thing we can deduce from the evidence is that ALV didn’t plant the seed of domestic violence in JA’s garden of lies. It’s possible that was a default defense Jodi came up with all on her own. It’s also possible the idea came from Dr. Richard Samuels or Dr. Cheryl Karp. We know Jodi spoke exhaustively about the alleged abuse to Karp and that ALV was given copies of their reports to review as part of her evaluation. I would imagine Karp’s report served as a “Certificate of Abuse” that propelled ALV forward to arrive at her ultimate conclusions.

            At worst, I think ALV probably helped refine Jodi’s tales of abuse, but I don’t think we can fairly credit her for that basic line of defense.

          • I think you’re right, Linda. She didn’t plant the seed. But I do think she came in feeling she needed to help Jodi understand that she was a victim and it wasn’t her fault. You know, helping the victim who doesn’t want to “de-edify” the abuser. So she saw her role as helping to educate and convince Jodi how to view her situation.

          • Agreed, Maria. There’s no doubt in my mind that ALV went into the evaluation with the intention of “helping” a poor, traumatized abuse victim on trial for her life. Jodi was lucky to have her — ALV’s testimony persuaded four jury members to vote against the death penalty.

  9. Dr. R, I await with bated breath your article on this person. I find her to be a liar and very unprofessional. I thought she was almost evil on the stand testifying to the jury about how in her opinion Jodi was so abused by Travis and she did her best to convince the jury of her lies. I find it interesting that she kept using ‘patterns’ as how she came to her conclusion that Travis was the abuser without ever interviewing anybody but Jodi. That convinces me about her own pattern. I also think she and Dr. Samuels taught Jodi different phrases to use in her testimony to get the jury to believe the abuse. I believe Vilette’s history should be studied in past cases that she may have testified to in family court because I feel like she likely lied in many cases probably against the fathers (male) and possibly helped to prevent fathers from visitation with the children and judges do listen to the so called professional. I do not believe that Vilette believed Jodi’s story but must have had some reason for her testimony, what could that be? As a matter of fact, I believe she helped Jodi come up with some of the false scenarios. I don’t think people should have threatened her, that is sick. But I know that I think she is a liar and I have a right to say that. She is a liar. Period. Also I would love to know if her book has sold well. I also would love to know if other professionals have any respect for her. I think she is the worst possible person anybody should go to for any therapy of any kind. I can’t tell you strongly enough how vile I find Vilette. Oh. And I think she had an effect on the jury foreman. I think her testimony is why he thinks Travis abused Jodi. Please hurry up with your posting, Dr. R!!!! Thanks.

  10. I believe this interview was timed to coincide with the motions before the court by the defense.

    I totally disagree with the diagnosis by ALV.

    I know that she was paid by the defense for her research and testimony.

    Unprofessional because she stated her fears from the threats received? that has nothing to do with her profession – it is about a human being who has been threatened because people hate Arias and disagree with her position.

    As already stated, critique her books and/or speeches ONLY if one has read them or heard them. Critique them in a humane manner. Everyone has the right to their own opinion without malice to others.

    Anyone and I mean ANYONE who testified in defense of Arias would be hated by J. Q. Public. The defense has the right to put on a defense, no matter how offensive it may be to others. That is their job. the fact that this defense is so obviously ruled by the defendant has made it so despicable. but to try to destroy someone’s career because of their opinion is also despicable. If an expert witness’s testimony is so far off the wall and wrong, their own words will determine their future in their profession.

    Again, I do not agree at all with the diagnosis set forth by Alyce. I think it is bogus, but I feel no ill-will towards her. She did what she thought was right and does not deserve the treatment she has received. Her future is in her hands and so it should be.

    • Nern, I was one who critiqued her book on Amazon without reading it. I did look over parts of the book on google books and verified what it contained. Let me please share why I feel it was still legitimate to review the book.

      The title of the book is “It Could Happen To Anyone.” The subtitle is something like “Why Women Stay.” My critique focused on how, no, actually, she doesn’t believe it could happen to anyone because she doesn’t believe it can happen to a man. The book also contains her chart, used at trial, that she “created.” This is not science, so it’s important, I think, to point out to less educated people seeking help that a person’s experience in a field does not make what they chart out “science” that can be applied across the board to another person’s life.

      Also, at trial she said proudly that everyone should read her book and watch her videos as they contain her theories. We got the full version of her theories at the trial, so for those who did not watch the Arias trial, the critique was of her theories contained in the book. (Most people in this world looking for domestic violence material did not watch the Arias trial.) There were lots of interesting reviews there, by the way, some by psychologists and research psychologists criticizing her in very intelligent ways.

      If not for those reasons, I would completely agree that it’s unfair to critique a book you haven’t read because you dislike the author. As in all things, every crowd is a mixed bag of people. Some went overboard. But if you read those reviews, I myself found it very inspiring to read people (mainly women) who’ve been abused refusing to subscribe to her fanatical views and standing up against false allegations.

      It was like a spontaneous forum (on Amazon) for people who’ve either experienced domestic abuse or worked with domestic abuse to express well reasoned arguments on why she does not speak for them.

    • Well- here is my rebuttal to you Nern- ALV (tried to) destroy Travis’ reputation on the stand. Why do you think she had the right to do that?
      You’re saying that we the public should not destroy ALVs reputation- but she called Travis a pedophile for God’s sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Why should ALV be treated to a kinder standard than she dishes out??
      Why should ALV be treated with more respect than murder victim Travis??

      • I so agree with you Zooyork. If you disrespect someone then you deserve it back especially if you are supposed to be a professional which in my point of veiw she is NOT. ALV had many text from Travis that she read but what happened to the ones that Jodi sent him? Did they disapear like CASPER THE GHOST? Or was it another wonderland on ALV’s part? I am sure Jodi’s text would have had a lot to say and it would not have been in a good way. Why did not ALV not speak to another person including Jodi’s old girlfriend or boyfriend? All ALV wanted is to be known for a few days of fame. Nerm I’m putting you on a time out. LOL

        • Penny – I find interesting that you use the same language as the woman you obviously dislike so much and LOL doesn’t cut it. As it has been said many times before, everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is disagreed with, then there is a respectful way to state that. If I have offended you or anyone else with my own opinion, I apologize but will continue to state what I feel as long as able.

          • I used “time out” and “are you mad at me” as examples of what ALV said on the stand which I find very unprofessional. I am sorry you took offence as it was not meant in that way Working in the medical field for over 25 years I have less patience with people like ALV. I feel she was very arrogant, self righteous and she felt her words would have to be believed. I have worked with Dr.’s like her and ran as fast as I could. If a professional is insulted if you get a 2nd opinion (same as her not speaking with anyone other then Jodi) something is wrong. The psyhiatrist I work for would have never conducted himself as ALV did on the stand. Knowing this it is hard for me to understand people that didn’t see through her but yes of course we are all entitled to our opinion.

          • Penny, I personally enjoyed your posting and thought you are quick and too cool to have used the wordings (or should I say verbage like Vilette and Samuels used and oh, yes, Jodi used) that you copied that Vilette used – time out and are you mad at me, Mr. Martinez!!!!!! I don’t believe that Vilette actually believes the opinions she stated on the stand. I believe that she came up with all this crap to confuse the jury. Yes, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I have to say that if she HONESTLY believed what she said, her opinions, then I feel even sorrier for her clients than I did before and I do not understand the law that people are allowed to literally make up this crap. Nern, please. Let the ones of us who despise liars be able to vent. How is this hurting your higher morals? This is a blog. My opinion is that I loved Penny’s little cuts about the vile one. I think we are getting too ‘legal’ maybe. Legal and facts are not the same thing as I see it. Penny, you go, girl.

          • Nance
            I agree that we all have our opinions and we are entitled to voice them in places like this blog as long as the Administrator allows it.
            I also agree that if one wishes to vent about issues that rile them – so be it. Not an issue.
            What I am finding as comments are made is that it seems to get personal if one has a differing opinion. I have seen this numerous times in comments between bloggers. It does not mean that one has “higher morals”. It means they differ in opinions. That is all I am saying.
            Rant, rave, be upset, but I feel it is important that these rantings and ravings need to be directed at the issue, not at others who may have a different opinion.

            I like this blog – find it interesting, find I am learning through it and wish to continue.

            I will make one last apology for any comments that may have seemed directed at another in an offensive way.

          • Thank you Nance. I do know I can get carried away. It’s hard for me to understand that some people could not see through her. I want to puke when she would look at Jodi and her defense team and smile. It was like she was letting them know she had the power to have everyone believe Jodi was a victim of DV then turn around and smirk at Juan. She went on the stand with no proof of anything and tried to make Travis even a pervert with children. I so wanted to reach in the TV and smack her ugly face. I too feel sorry for her clients. Wonder how many child custody cases she got wrong. She is an Alyce and Wonderland Fantasy. Then we have Dr Doolittle who knew nothing and could never find his papers. He really was a joke. They both should be disbarred. At least I can understand Jodi’s defense team. They have to do everything the can to keep DP off the table. Betting Nurmi is hating every minute. Like he said “9 times out of 10 I don’t like her.”

      • Zooyork

        So, If I understand you correctly – turnabout is fair play?

        Yes, ALV demonized the wrong person on the stand. No, she shouldn’t have done that.

        ALV destroyed her own career with her opinions.
        The public can be outraged and extremely upset over her testimony and comments afterward. But to deliberately set out to further demolish her – no, I do not agree with that.

        Turnabout is not fair play.

  11. This woman is completely self deluded and a professional victim. She claims people are surprised she was not angry. Are you kidding me? Her anger was obvious on the stand. There was no other angrier witness.

    This idea that she can’t testify, and giving an interview about it, is an obvious, dishonest ploy by the defense to set up an appeals issue. (She is part of the defense.) She cannot really just refuse to testify. She has to be let out of testifying by the court. But Nurmi won’t call her or have a hearing to compel her, so the court can’t intervene; and he can just claim on appeal that his expert refused to testify at the death penalty phase because of death threats. It’s a lie. You can just say no to drugs; you can’t just say no to subpoena.

    (Or, more specifically, you can’t say no to continuing your expert testimony once you started to testify in a trial. If this were true, any expert not liking the way they’re being treated can just say no and derail any trial in the country.)

  12. Thank you Dr K. I saw the interview of Laviolette and she made me sick. I don’t believe anyone should get death threats but why would she give this interview knowing she is putting herself out there for more. If she is so into domestic abuse how in the world does she think she can believe Jody when there was no proof and not another person she can interview. I as far as I’m concerned she has made a mockery out of abuse and should never be able to be in this type of busness or a speaker again. I think the interview she gave might be to keep her out of this trial for the sentencing. I is really hard for me to believe she really thinks Jodi was abused. This is why I think everything in the past should be brought up about that person before sentencing. As a juor I think I could make more informed opinion by not being in the dark as far as background. Thanks for what you do.

  13. AV is used to dealing, over her long career, with real domestic violence which is under-reported. She has seen tons of cases where the victim didn’t report it, and has worked to understand why that happens. Because of this, and because of some lack of ‘savvy’, she was totally unprepared to deal with the Arias case in an unbiased and intelligent manner. And because she was hired by the defense, nobody was giving her advice on how or even whether to do this. So, she came into court with all her ‘confirmation bias’. When JM started pointing out how she so obviously screwed up in her assessment, she was not (and apparently is still not) able to acknowledge it because 1) it’s very difficult for someone who is an expert to admit they were manipulated and duped–most people dig their heels in, to preserve their reputation and sense of competetncy, and 2) even if she wanted to own up, she no doubt felt it would be improper to do so, having been hired by the defense.

    She is not an ogre, or horrible person. She is an average person who got herself in a situation that was too much for her to handle properly. She does deserve every last criticism of her competence in this particular arena and probably some questioning of her ethics.

    • to dcsmyth1 – I have to say that I think your assessment is right on the mark. ALV got caught up in something far beyond her.
      This woman has had a long career, and I might add a successful one for her. She undoubtedly has helped many, many people.
      She was not prepared for the international scrutiny that she received. She was out of her realm. She got caught in the Arias net.
      I agree that she is not an ogre or horrible person. She has done good things. Unfortunately, she does not receive criticism well at all and she certainly does not deserve the crap that went along with this criticism.

      • Sorry I have to disagree with both you and dcsmyth1. After working 8 years for a pychiatrist that does get supoenaed to court he would never go in unprepared or guess from a text book. He would have to have concrete knowledge before he would commit himself to any answer. A.V. spent 44 hours with jodi which was way to many and if she could not realize by that amount of hours Jodi was a liar she needs to have her head examed. Yes you are able to speak with her family to make sure all truth is being heard. A.V. choose not to do that. If she was intelligent she would have never taken this case. Money and a few days of fame talk. She is no expert and I really hate to see what she has done to other peoples life. She is very incometent and unethical. I have worked in the medical field for over 25 years I do know the Dr.’s that have very high ethics. She should be disbarred.

        • Penny, good post. 44 hours should be more than enough to figure out someone is not telling the real story. And how does Nern know she has done good work, I wonder? I do not believe she did good work in her profession but that is just a feeling from being around bully types and knowing how they pat themselves on the back. She didn’t interview anybody but Jodi because she knew from the attorneys and possibly Jodi herself that they would have a totally different story. That way she could say that by reading her journals and emails and texts she could see the ‘pattern’ of abuse by Travis. And it is my understanding that most professionals do not spend anywhere near 44 hours with a person to get an evaluation. Maybe she wasn’t there to evaluate? I don’t really know now that I am thinking about it. She was there to help come up with possibilities to teach Jody how to convince the jury that she was abused and attacked. I have also heard that professionals don’t give their clients gifts of books, magazines, whatever she gave Jodi because it isn’t professional. And remember she testified that she apologized to Jodi when she first met her? I wonder if that is a common introduction by these types of professionals like her? I don’t know. I still believe she was there to help Jodi use the proper language and explanations about her abuse by Travis, abuse that never happened. And I think she was involved in inventing and perfecting the pedophile story. Nobody, especially a so-called professional, would believe Jodi’s story so I do think Vilette and Samuels helped ramp it up. And money was nothing to worry about. The state pays her however much time she spends with Jodi as I understand it. And would somebody explain why she was looking to the left so much?

          • Nance – I do not know from any experience that she did good work but made the assumption given her age, the jobs she has held and that she is not destitute and therefore has earned a wage. Maybe my choice of “good” to describe her career was not appropriate but obviously she has earned a living throughout the years. She also has spoken at a number of conferences and unless the organizers are incompetent, they felt she was appropriate for their venue.
            I always felt that as she looked to the left when testifying she was looking for guidance from the defense – specifically Arias as she is/was the one in control.

          • Plus the fact I have never seen a therapist that brought her fan club to court with her. As far as getting paid all you have to do is look at most of the crooked politcians and that should give you an idea of who is being paid. Many more people get paid and have not earned it.

          • I think she was letting Jodi know she was on her side and trying to assure Jodi she was smarter then Juan. I think she has probably destroyed more people then she ever help. I want to slap the smug look off her face. If she got death threats why no police reports? Wouldn’t that be the first thing a normal person would do. A.V. go choke on a chicken bone.

    • I would add to this, though, that she deliberately ignored the research showing that men and women are almost equally involved as the perpetrators of abuse. She’s written on how this is not true. She had taken a side denying this long before she met Jodi Arias. Having a dog in this fight, she uses her cases to continue proving her point.

      Soon after the trial a very good research book came out explaining, again, that it is true that women engage in physical abuse at comparable rates as men.

      • @Maria,

        Thanks for the link to that article. I found it very interesting and hope that, at some point, Dr. KR might be willing to address it.

        I didn’t yet follow all the embedded links in the article to other sites but I do have some initial questions and concerns about the validity of the study’s conclusions.

        One statement in the article was of particular interest to me…

        Among PASK’s findings are that, except for sexual coercion, men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.

        If the study determined most domestic violence is mutual then the overall conclusion would seem to be skewed. For one thing, does the study account for which gender is more often the first to initiate the mutual violence? If the opposite partner only reacts in self defense, is this counted as mutual?

        Remove the mutual violence and what ratio is left? Which gender sustains the more severe and the most injuries? Are injuries even classified according to level of severity? For example, a face slap and a broken arm are both violent but they are certainly not equally violent.

        How much of the mutual violence is “provoked” by non-violent abuse and by whom? How much of it is not provoked at all by the partner but merely an angry, spontaneous outburst over something unrelated? For example, how many women come home from a bad day at the office and crack a frying pan over a man’s head just because it makes them feel better to hit someone?

        Sorry, Maria, for throwing all those questions at you. I’m not expecting you to answer them, just expressing my skepticism at the validity of some of the study’s conclusions. I’ll try to find time to follow some of those links.

        • Erin Pezzey is one of the early founders of domestic violence shelters in England who saw first hand that women often initiate domestic violence (which is not to say that any woman battered must have started it!!!) Just that when women are the batterers it has been minimized and ignored as politically incorrect. Curious that lesbians are known to have comparable or higher rates of domestic violence, exposing what no one wanted to believe, that women do it too.

          • I’ve heard complaints from both gays and lesbians that their relationships are often difficult because of aggression/dominance issues.

            I’m still wondering if the stats on women include/exclude DV against children. I suspect if they include children, the ratios would absolutely begin to even out.

  14. If I had to guess, the limit on what she could do was based on finances. She chose to look at what she had to look at with her hourly expert fee in mind, and exclude other avenues of inquiry.

    I also take umbrage with her sudden experience with anxiety, and that she’s never experienced anxiety before. I know very few people who’ve never experienced test anxiety, especially as they go further in education. I know very few authors who’ve failed to experience anxiety when looking for a publisher of their book. I know very few professionals who haven’t experienced anxiety the first time they act in the capacity of that profession – the first time they get a client. Anxiety attacks are a bit different, but what she’s describing is a nightmare, not a panic attack. Further, I’ve known very few people who’ve dealt daily, professionally, with the worst things that can happen to people who don’t have nightmares from time to time.

    It’s an interesting interview. I don’t think Nurmi has a chance of appeal unless he actually calls her and she refuses to answer, taking a contempt charge rather than testifying. Maybe then an appeals court will buy that she was afraid for her life. But, really, if she’s afraid for her life, then why hasn’t she done what so many battered women have done? Gone into hiding, changed her residence and closed her counseling service. Nope, she’s full of it. If Nurmi fails to call her, and there’s no official record of her “fear”, then where’s the appeal? A news interview hardly constitutes testimony under oath, or a refusal to answer a subpoena. If Nurmi fails to call her, then that’s an appeal that’s going no where fast. If she actually refuses to answer a subpoena and gets a contempt charge, then maybe the issue will have teeth.

    Also note that, to my knowledge, nobody has been arrested for making threats, death or otherwise.

    It is an interesting interview. I pity her clients.

  15. If I remember right Samuels and LaViolette sent her books and these probably helped her with her story of domestic violence. I don’t even know how someone not living with a person or even in the same state can even think of claiming domestic violence and get professionals to back her up. Even the so called verbal abuse in emails and on the phone was mild compared to what I may have said and by the time that happened he already was wise to her behaviors and didn’t want any more to do with her. Jodi deserved every bit of what he said.

    Just the hokey school Alyce went to (the name escapes me now, a diploma mill) and never furthering her so called career or licensing told me she was lazy and that is how I felt about her evaluation. Like many she probably hit on the topic of the day deomestic violence because she went to counseling for her self and then decided to “help others”. I’m sure she fancies herself a fore runner revolutionary womens rights activist type but I see her a a pathetic liar.

        • Dr. Drew is in the entertainment business and although probably respected in his field, his need for ratings takes precedent.
          Dr. Phil is just an arrogant ass. He hails from the ranks of the supreme egotistical, arrogant and “holier than thou” person – O.W. He, like her, believes he will change the world.
          Anyone that has to use TV to get their points across are in it for themselves and only themselves. Very exploitive!

  16. Does anybody know when Jodi confessed that she was the perpetrator of the murder? I can’t remember. Was it before, during, or after her sessions with Samuels and/or Vilette? And is it at all possible in any way that she can worm her way out of the conviction? Is that what the defense is up to? Please tell me she can’t get out of the murder conviction. I have an uneasy feeling. I have had it all along.

    • Nance, Jodi should hire me as her next defense attorney cause I’ve figured out exactly how to get out of her confession. Dr. Samuel’s testified on the stand that he conducted some interviews and testing on Jodi where she gave the ninja story. He then approached her two lawyers and told them he did not believe the ninja story was the truth. He said he encouraged them to talk to Jodi to tell the truth. Nurmi then met with Jodi. Nurmi then returned and told Dr. Samuel’s that Jodi was ready to tell the truth.

      My view is that Nurmi obviously presented her with a better defense–asking if there was any way self defense might be the truth. She agreed and out came the “confession.” Too bad for her because the ninja story, and her absolutely loving face talking about how wonderful Travis was, was much better than the path they took. She might have conned at least on juror had she testified like she did on 48 Hours and her other press conferences. She was mesmerizing in those!

      If she’s smart, she should go back and claim Dr. Samuel’s planted false memories of having killed Travis after insisting the TRUTH was not the truth. Don’t be surprised if this happens 10 years down the line.

      • Maria, I won’t be surprised if 10 years down the road she claims something like this. I have a sickening feeling that she is going to worm her way out of this conviction. I don’t know why. I am told that there is no way the guilty verdict can be overturned. I hope not. I also think that Samuels and then later Vilette helped to hone her lies about abuse and being attacked by Travis. This whole thing is disgusting at this point. I wish we didn’t have the death sentence in our country but in this case, everybody agreed that they could vote the death penalty if it was warranted. We know that the foreman believed that she had been abused. We know that because he said that. I am so grateful he was intelligent enough to see that she did murder him and it was a planned out murder. At least he had that much sense. But I guess Vilette got to him in some way.

        • I worry too Nance. My consolation is that even if the conviction were reversed, it would only mean a new trial. She’ll never really get out of a conviction. She painted herself into a corner by the many news conferences.

          • Penny – I do not think she would get 25 with credit for time served. Judge Shirley gave her all the leeway she could and Arias hung herself. I think she will get LWOP from the judge if a new jury cannot come to an agreement for the DP.

          • Penny –
            Everyone has their “first” and this judge is not different – obviously.

            Should this trial still be going on – of course not and it is frustrating and exasperating.

            But to blame it on someone’s “first” when they are making sure all “t’s” are crossed and “i’s” dotted plus working within the rules of the court and then… assisting in getting the justified and true verdict of – GUILTY of Aggravated, Pre-meditated Murder, I believe is slightly unfair.

            I believe that any fault should be aimed at the justice system of Arizona.

          • @NERN, just curious why you said,

            I believe that any fault should be aimed at the justice system of Arizona.

            Did you have something specific in mind? Or was that just an expression of exasperation with this case?

            There’s that old saying, “justice delayed is justice denied.” When a defendant waives his/her right to a speedy trial, this is what you get. There can be very legitimate reasons for the defense [and the prosecution] not to rush to judgment.

            The first two years following the murder were wasted with Jodi’s ninja lies and attorneys trying to get away from her — all of the original attorneys were allowed to withdraw. When Nurmi, the 3rd or 4th attorney appointed to represent Arias, also tried to withdraw, the court (perhaps rightly) forced him to remain on the case so the trial could eventually proceed. But then sometime later Nurmi’s co-counsel was allowed to withdraw and Willmott was appointed. Another setback, I’m sure, but not as severe this time.

            I’m not casting aspersions on the attorneys who asked to withdraw and were allowed to do so. I don’t know the reasons behind their requests and they may well have been very good reasons. My point is that if you remove those first two years of chaos, this trial would be a done deal. And I’m not sure how to blame AZ for those delays.

          • My point exactly. You can not blame AZ. The judge is the one that sets the dates for trials and judge Sherry keeps giving delays. This maybe her first murder case but she knows enough to keep a case going.

          • What DOES Justice delayed is justice denied mean? I don’t have any idea. (and I am keeping this short so please note this!!!!) I am learning so much, people.

          • To Linda K and Penny,

            As a layman in the field of justice and the legal system, I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs. Not only do I not have any experience in your legal system but in my own country, Canada, as well.


            Having read all the in-depth comments posted on this blog regarding the responsibilities of the Judge, the lawyers, the law and the experts, it is obvious that the system does not seem to be working well.
            Each has constraints put on them and in my opinion, these constraints seem to favour the rights of the defendant. The defendant becomes the focal point in all of this. Even the media talk, in most cases, about the defendant, psychoanalyzing them to no end.
            It is imperative, from what I have seen, that the defendants rights must be preserved. Whatever the reasoning for this – to quell future appeals or whatever, seems to often end up putting the victim “on trial” as blatantly seen in this case. The victim’s rights are gone – taken by the defendant and it is up to family to speak for them. The defendants rights should be gone, especially when incarcerated, but sadly they are not.
            Defamation of character and outright bashing of the VICTIM seems to continually creep into the defense’s strategy in order to win the case. The constraints put on the judge through the law and even the prosecution only serve to allow this kind of stuff to go on.
            For me this is fundamentally wrong.
            The system is not working well and after this mess is finally done, it would serve everyone, and any future cases, to look at why.

            So Linda K. and Penny, that is my rational, good or bad, for my opinion.

          • @NERN,

            You are SO not alone in your feelings toward our justice system. “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” — and we take that to heart. Do we go overboard? Perhaps. But then we also, on occasion, convict the innocent in spite of ourselves.

            I’m no lawyer, but I have a love and respect for the law in general. Of course there are some laws that seem odd/stupid/wrong at face value, but if I dig a little deeper I can usually find the wisdom which created those laws. I may or may not agree with the wisdom, but it’s there.

            You are absolutely right that defendants have more rights than victims (be they dead or alive). How many rights would you be willing to waive — or just do without — if you found yourself wrongfully accused? How zealously would you want your attorney to present your case?

            “Innocent until proven guilty,” is another sacred legal concept down here, yet we have to be continually reminded of it, human as we are. We must also be reminded that the opposite of Guilty is Not Guilty rather than Innocent.

            The most serious case that ever goes before a judge is a capital murder case. No judge wants to mess it up and be reversed on appeal. And yet it happens, despite the best of efforts and intentions.

            So yes, making sausage [justice] is ugly and messy. And the finished product doesn’t always set well in the stomach.

          • @NERN,

            I neglected to address your concern about the character of the victim being dragged into the courtroom — a concern I share. Maria would be better able to explain the legal limits of what is admissible. But, in a nutshell, Jodi claimed self-defense. This means establishing fear, and the way she tried to do that was by presenting what evidence she could that Travis abused her over a long period of time and in a variety of ways. I can’t make a legal judgment as to how much of that evidence should or should not have been allowed, but in general terms, I believe she had a right to make her case to the jury.

            As for the media. What can I say. Aren’t they the same everywhere?

          • Linda K
            You make good, important points in your comments back to me.

            I agree – innocent until proven guilty.
            Arias was guilty and admitted such. Her ploy then was to get out of it the best way she could. This is what all defendants do. She made her best effort for 18 days on the stand – 18 days that could have been reduced greatly if she had not been allowed to embellish every answer she gave especially when questioned by her own lawyers.

            The basic flaw that I see, and this is in my humble opinion, is that the system allows vilification of the victim rather than concentrating on the perpetrator or at least the one accused of the crime. And this is called a defense – transferring the focus on the victim in order to minimize the acts of the accused. Theatrics should not be allowed in the courtroom. This is real life and in this particular case, the law allows for Arias, who admitted the slaughter, to use whatever theatrics she chooses to defend herself.

            I cannot say what I would do if for some terrible reason and series of events I found myself in the position of an accused person. God forbid that that would ever be a reality. Life is too precious to me – all life.

            Yup, the media is the same everywhere and in this day and age, we seem to be slaves to it. The media plays with information that they present to sway people to the desired beliefs of the backers of the particular network. It is important to be forever mindful of the truth and research all facts before blindly believing the media sources that are so prominent in our society.

            This is true with trials as well and unfortunately, we as the public knew far more about Arias than the jury which had to conform to the laws of the court and make their judgement based on the evidence presented. And there is where I see the flaw.
            Laws are not made to be broken but they can be challenged – and should be.

          • Penny, this is not Judge Stephens first murder trial. It’s her first death penalty trial. Most judges are in the same position as few cases qualify for the death penalty. But she has certainly presided over many murder trials since she was first appointed to criminal court in 2004. Even during this trial there have been other murder cases going on simultaneously on her docket on days Arias was not the center of attention.

          • Here’s just one example of a murder case Judge Stephens presided over in 2007, which resulted in a conviction for manslaughter instead. The place to go for information on her murder cases is the appeals court which lists many such cases that defendant’s appealed (as they always do.) Not important to read, just citing it to support this is not her first murder case.

      • @GiGi,

        On day 1 of the police interrogation Jodi maintained she wasn’t there the day of the murder. On day 2 her story changed to the “Ninja” story. She stayed with that story for two years, until Dr. Samuels had enough of her lies and went to Nurmi to implore him to talk to her. It was after that when Jodi’s story changed to self-defense. I want to say it that happened sometime around November/December of 2010 but it may have been a few months earlier. As far as I can tell from the court records, LaViolette wasn’t retained until sometime in 2012.

        • Thank you I remembered later that she stuck with the nijas story for a couple yrs. I get so annoyed with this case and dragging it out. I think in the end though I want her to get the death penalty she will probably just get life. I say that because I have heard so many say just sentence her to life without parole and be done with it. Maybe that is the whole point of dragging this out is to wear people down.

          Zervakos should be sent a bill from the state for causing all these added expenses. This case should have been done and over with.

Leave a Comment