Jodi Arias Trial: Is Alyce LaViolette’s Behavior Unprofessional?

By | April 14, 2013

On the seventh day of Ms. LaViolette’s testimony, a senior producer for Jane Velez- Mitchell’s HLN news program noticed something interesting occurring insnapshot_001 the courtroom. Before court started, on a day in which Ms. LaViolette was scheduled to be cross-examined by prosecutor Martinez, she was being “prepped” by her supporters. The producer noticed that Ms. LaViolette had an “entire row” of supporters. Two of the female and one of the male supporters, were rubbing her shoulders and giving her pep talks, assuring her that she can “do this.” During testimony, the producer noticed that one female in particular, was pleased when Ms. LaViolette didn’t allow prosecutor Martinez to “back her into a corner.” She would nod her head and smile each time Ms. LaViolette “beat” Prosecutor Martinez. 

During her testimony, Ms. LaViolette inadvertently confirmed the fact that she had supporters in the courtroom. In response to a juror question about why Ms. LaViolette would continuously look and smile at Jodi and her defense team during cross-examination, Ms. LaViolette responded that she may not have been looking at Jodi or her defense team. Rather, Ms. LaViolette stated that she might have been looking and smiling at her elementary school friends who were sitting in the front row behind Jodi and her defense team. Why would Ms. LaViolette’s elementary school friends, come to a murder trial to watch Ms. LaViolette’s testimony? 

The question could easily be answered if her elementary school reunion had been planned for the lunch break at the courthouse cafeteria. Anything short of that, would seem not only unprofessional but also childish. Why does an adult, professional, with 30+ years of experience need or desire the presence of friends and family in the courtroom while she testifies? 

In response to another juror question about her limited involvement with males, Ms. LaViolette also stated that her father was in the court room. 

Alyce LaViolette was hired by the defense team as a professional expert witness. Why would a professional expert witness need a support team to prep her before testimony? Her role in this case is to tell the truth about her opinion and her observations about Jodi, and Jodi’s relationship with Travis. It borders on bizarre that she would feel the need to bring a team of old friends and supporters into the courtroom or even allow them to attend. 

She is supposed to be there to state her professional opinion and to answer all questions with candor and honesty.

Why would her father feel the need to come and watch his daughter testify? Was he there to see her first at-bat in the major league? If so, it would mean that until this trial  Ms. LaViolette was a minor-league player. 

Was he there to protect her from the mean, abusive, male prosecutor? We know that prosecutor Martinez, is intense. Some commentators see this as aggressiveness. This writer does not. I see him as intensely sincere in his approach to his job. It is his job to reveal the truth and more so than the police officers and more so than the judge, it is his job to enforce justice. If he does a poor job or simply goes to work and does “just enough” until he collects that government pension, justice is not being done. 

Think about it. What would you have thought about the professionalism of Dr. Richard Samuels if he came to court each day with a team of friends and old elementary school buddies? What if during breaks or before his testimony we saw him getting shoulder massages and pep talks from these supporters? 

For a liar or anyone who is trying to be deceptive in some way, a day with Martinez is not going to be any fun. That’s not because prosecutor Martinez is mean, unfair or abusive. It’s because he makes it very hard for a liar to lie or a deceiver to deceive. 

It is my deepest belief that no one who sits on that witness stand, who has taken that seat with the intention of answering each question with honesty and candor and who will not attempt to deceive or mislead, needs a support team or neck massages.

38 thoughts on “Jodi Arias Trial: Is Alyce LaViolette’s Behavior Unprofessional?

  1. Janice Harper

    Well said. I couldn’t agree more. And I feel that by turning criminal trials into non-stop reality shows, this trend will only continue. After all, had this trial not been televised, would she have even thought to have an audience and support group accompany her?

    1. wmaceo

      Although this trial has been compared to a “realtiy show”, in the manner is has progressed, the difference is this is REALITY. A show which has NOT been scripted, where starring roles have not been up for audition. This is real. This trial will decide whether a young woman lives or dies. There was a young man’s life taken, and justice needs to be served. Fair and balanced justice. Not justice from popularity. There will be no voting by America deciding the outcome of this trial. It will be decided by 12 jurors who are listening to each and every bit of testimony allowed. So, to find fault with the prosecutor who is fighting for the young many who can no longer fight for himself, in itself is unfair. If it were one of our family members who was brutally murdered, I’m sure each of us would want someone as passionate, intelligent, and driven seeking justice, Same can be said for the defense. I’m sure Ms. Arias and her family wants the toughest defense attorneys and expert witnesses fighting for her. We are innocent in believing we shall find truth in itself. Unfortunately, this trial so sensational and popular because of the many lies told by the defendant, Prior to the trial’s beginning, Ms. Arias was proven a liar time and time again, as well as a master manipulator. For those of us who want to see justice served, we are watching every minute of this trial. We do support Juan Martinez, and we feel that he is doing a fantastic job. Hopefully, he will be victorious and the jury will render a guilty verdict. So, if she is found guilty and sentenced to death, no one wins. This reality show will have no happy ending for anyone.

  2. Ria

    As much as I’m enjoying watching this trial, I have to agree with Janice that it’s turned into a reality show. I think it would be much more advantageous, for all parties involved, if camera’s hadn’t been allowed in the court room.

    I too, found it very odd when ALV mentioned having elementary school friends in the front row. Weird that she felt the need to specify they were from elementary school. Was that some sort of weak effort on her part to try and prove she’s been able to maintain friends for a really long time? And not just one but a whole group of them?

    I think she’s shown on many levels, how unprofessional she is and how out of her league she was in taking on this case. From the jury questions, it sounds like they’re not buying what she’s selling. For Jodi to lie about killing Travis was “normal human behavior” yet for Travis to lie about his virginity was proof of him leading a “double life”…seriously? What planet is this moron from??? I noticed they’ve backed off from Jodi’s horribly abusive childhood now that they’ve seen it wasn’t going to serve her well.

    I just hope this all culminates in justice being served. Jodi should not be out of prison, ever…she’s a dangerous woman.

  3. Beth I.

    I think this provides some very much needed insight into this *expert’s* character. She’s truly joined the circus and NOT as a spectator.

    Thanks!

  4. Patty

    I’ve been saying that if civil servants behaved the way she has, they’d be fired and/or cited for contempt and fined (or maybe even spend a little time in jail, cooling their heels). Cops, CSIs, medical examiners, 911 operators, etc) are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner when they are called to testify. Defense lawyers don’t have any qualms about doing everything they can to rattle and discredit these witnesses. The lawyers question their ethics, their methods, their conclusions and these civil servants take it on the chin. So, when these talking defense lawyers on HLN and other shows start whining about how poor Alyce (who is probably pocketing close to $50K for this case) is treated by mean old Martinez, I want to scream.

    1. wmaceo

      Ms. LaViolette is going to pocket more than $100K from this case. At $250 per hour for interviews and research, and $350 per hour to testify, she’s already near that. The defense team will make even more than that. The tab a few weeks ago was nearly $1 million. Now, compare that to Mr. Martinez’s salary, which is typically around $150,000 at most – ANNUALLY. Now, tell me which one is doing this work for the right reasons, and which parties may be motivated by something else?

  5. Patricia

    this just goes to show that she never had testisfied in criminal court, “once or twice” like she tried to mislead the jury into believing. I agree it’s totally unprofessional.

  6. Lised

    Ms. LaViolette’s was hired by the defense and with that lost her objectivity. Because she is a “domestic abuse expert” she had to find domestic abuse and since her client was Jodi Arias, Jodi became the victim and Travis the abuser. Why does she lack objectivity, because if she was objective she would have found Jodi had symptoms of abuse but she found none. What really puzzled me is she did not write a report. Why not? The answer is simple, Mr. Martinez would have had something he could question, although, she was deposed, experts write reports. Experts show objectivity and are not above being questioned on what they opine. Then she gets on the witness stand and when facing the prosecutor takes a snarky attitude from the beginning of cross examination. A real expert testifies to the facts acting in a professional manner two things Ms. LaViolette did not do. I compared the defense’s use of Ms. LaViolette to a rape trial where the rape victim is victimized in court and that the rape occurred because she invited it. Travis by no means invited this horrific murder and it is unimaginable that the defense filed a motion to not have him referred to as “the victim” in court. The death penalty is reserved for those among us who do not deserve to live with us and the defense is proving Jodi Arias qualifies.

  7. Carol

    Is Jodi Arias’s former (arsonist) cellmate one of Alyce LaViolette’s former elementary school classmates? She is certainly one of the more vocal members of that group seated on the same row with JA’s mother, often next to her. Very curious indeed!

  8. Nella Lee, Ph.D.

    Is ALV’s behavior unprofessional? Well, on the national stage of domestic violence, cutting edge research, peer reviewed publications, and academic qualifications for a tenured University position, Alyce is a bit player, at best. I would bet the heavy hitters in the field didn’t even know who she was, until now. She certainly is not their peer.

    Even Dr. “Fog” was better qualified than she, & his performance was dismal, mainly because there was no scientific proof (he tampered with what little there was) to back up his “diagnosis” & because his previous ethical lapses were made public.

    This leads one to wonder why the defense is relying on people who are so vulnerable to being discredited? Is it because no other professionals were willing to support their fictitious claims? Is it because Willmott & Nurmi are incompetent & didn’t properly vet their “experts?” Perhaps they knew the limitations of Samuels & ALV & hoped the State wouldn’t notice?

    I think the bias of ALV is even more blatant than Samuels’ pathetic attempts to exonerate Arias. She is relying on character assassination to reach her “assessment” of a dead man, apparently unaware she is engaging in the same behavior she accuses him of. She has a subjective opinion based on the “patterns” displayed in written words, yet never tried to corroborate any of this by talking with anyone, other than Arias.

    As someone who sells herself as a professional, she had an obligation to make sure she had access to ALL available information. If the defense refused to provide it to her, she should have withdrawn because without it, an unbiased “analysis” is not possible.

    Is she unprofessional? Yes, & in addition she has been exposed as a charlatan.

    1. Lisa K

      The defense isn’t trying to go for an “ineffective counsel” appeal. While they have filed motions claiming that, such motions are routine in DP cases. Willmott and Nurmi aren’t ineffective lawyers. They simply have one of the most hopeless cases I’ve ever seen. This is not a case that can be won by the defense. The goal is to save JA from the DP.

      I’ve read that ALV is the 6th DV “expert” that the defense asked to evaluate. I think it is quite likely that the defense tried to find solid experts in the field of DV research. I suspect that the 5 previous experts evaluated JA and told the defense team that JA was at best not abused and at worst, a stalker and perpetrator of DV who murdered her lover.

      ALV was the only DV person the defense could find that could/would support their needed theory of DV. I suspect that the defense couldn’t find a forensic psychologist other than Samuels who would support their theory.

      I don’t think that ALV did this just for the money. I think that ALV truly believes that Travis physically, emotionally and sexually abused JA. I think that she believes that Travis was a pedophile, although there is no evidence supporting that belief.

      On Thur or Fri, ALV said that (please excuse the language, but I am quoting) “He said he wanted to pork a little girl.”

      JM immediately objected and interrupted ALV mid-sentence. But the comment was made.

      Travis never said that. Ever. There was no such comment in the sex tape or in any of the text messages, emails or instant messages. The phrase was never brought up in previous testimony. Was this another instance in which ALV “misspoke”? I don’t think so. I think ALV truly believes her analysis of the TA/JA relationship.

      ALV convinced herself that everything JA and her lawyers said were true. She has no evidence from which to form the opinion that Travis physically or sexually abused JA. I can see that some may find that one text message hostile. I don’t see how any professional could take that one text message and use it to show that Travis emotionally abused JA. ALV says that she relied on “so much data”. She relied on JA and on one text message interaction that occurred over hours. The text message interaction that ALV relied on only contained TA’s portions of the text discussion which occurred over several hours. ALV has no idea what JA said in her text messages in that discussion.

      ALV was never trained to work with those who are mentally ill or who have personality disorders. She was never ready to see what JA is. She never had the training to do so. This is one of the reasons ALV was so completely unprepared to deal with JA. ALV literally said that she doesn’t think that JA said any “major” lies in her interviews with JA. Really?

      I became angry whenever ALV called herself a “psychotherapist”. There is no indication that she has the necessary education and experience to refer to herself as a therapist. She was (I think) trained to do group counseling, but was never trained to work one-on-one with a single individual for over 40 hours. And I believe that ALV crossed boundaries; she went from evaluator to counselor.

      ALV has intense personal need to be “the expert”. True professionals in mental health know that they aren’t infallible. They don’t feel personally threatened when asked if they could be wrong. We saw no such professional understanding from ALV; we saw no such personal insight from ALV.

      I found some interesting writings by ALV. I hope it’s ok that I post links; I put a space in the links to deactivate them. Those interested can cut and paste the link.

      Women’s studies encyclopedia; “Battered Husband Syndrome (and other tall tales), pgs 155-157 tinyurl. com/bu42ppe

      Book on Amazon: Domestic Violence Offenders: Current Interventions, Research, and Implications for Policies and Standards
      (Preview book and see pages 45-56; not all pages available for preview). tinyurl. com/bv6cs8f

      An article written by ALV on her website: “Researchers Agree Women May Hit Their Male Partners, But Infrequently ‘Batter’ Them — Pattern of Coercion Is Seldom Present in Female Aggression” tinyurl. com/c4n745o

      Each of these articles/book chapters show that ALV had absolutely no business testifying as an expert witness in the JA case. Because of her bias, she ignited an unnecessary gender battle in effort to soothe her need to be viewed as an infallible “expert” who should be accepted without question. She was childish and looked absurd. I could have some compassion for her if she wasn’t violating the memory of TA and defending the woman who slaughtered and tortured him.

      On Thur, when the juror question session began, it didn’t take long for JA to begin to tear up. Dr. Drew mentioned that JA cries when she panics. I agree with him. JA teared up and then gradually went very far into her own thoughts. She knows that Samuels and ALV were major mistakes. While she successfully manipulated them, they couldn’t successfully manipulate the jury or JM on her behalf.

      But could the defense have done better? I don’t think so. They have a hopeless case.

      IMO, ALV made the DP more likely than it has been to date in this trial. I don’t know what the jury will do, but ALV made it obvious that JA is a talented liar and manipulator.

      Obviously ALV is biased. Her refusal to entertain that idea when asked by the jury several times was more evidence of her bias … and utter incompetence.

        1. Roberta

          No need to apologize for something so full of great points and so well written!! Remember, WE KNOW JODI IS GUILTY… we’re the smart ones =)

      1. Ria

        That was a great and spot on comment! I totally agree that the defense has a hopeless case…but it mystifies me as to why they went with self defense. If they’re only trying to keep her off death row, wouldn’t it have been wiser to try for some lesser form of murder?

        Even if Jodi was pleading for them to go with self defense, you would think they would have told her that, in the face of all the evidence and the brutality, it wasn’t a good idea.

        1. Lisa K

          JA tried to plead guilty to M2 or voluntary manslaughter in mid-late 2011. The maximum sentence for M2 is 22 years for someone who hasn’t been convicted of other crimes in the past.

          The Prosecutor denied the plea. It is likely that the family was consulted about the plea. But the murder was so vicious and heinous that JM couldn’t accept the plea and serve justice. The evidence of premed also makes a plea deal for M2 unreasonable.

          In AZ, the jury can find JA guilty of lesser charges such as M2 or manslaughter. They aren’t just limited to M1 or acquittal. The Prosecutor has nothing to lose by going for M1 in this case. He may not get JA sentenced to death.

          Regarding the choice of defense. JA doesn’t meet the criteria for the insanity defense (called guilty but insane in AZ). I can’t think of any other defense that the defense could use in this case other than self-defense. If the forensic evidence were more circumstantial, then perhaps alternative defenses could be found. Self-defense is the only option for the defense.

  9. sturgeongirl

    As always, your assessment is spot-on. I was a Courtroom Clerk for many years and NEVER once observed supporters or family of an expert witness in attendance at a trial. In my opinion, to have them there is certainly questionable behavior…but to identify and refer to the presence of friend and family supporters, IN TESTIMONY, for the purpose of influencing jurors performing their fact-finding duty, must be, at least, an ethical violation, if not more.

    Very UNprofessional on her part…in the very least.

  10. Babs

    If justice is to be served, Alyce LaViolette’s testimony should be impeached in it’s entirety. She clearly does not have the academic credentials to qualify as an expert witness in a capital offense trial. She also does not have the work background and experience to testify and she clearly proved she doesn’t have either the integrity or the stamina to testify.

    It seems apparent that Alyce had her career all set where she probably had achieved excellence at her level; he wrote a book, published articles in little known journals and was a frequent speaker at events where often the only requirement to deliver an address is having a heartbeat.

    I can just imagine her absolute delight when she was contacted to be a defense witness in a high profile case. At that point all Alyce saw were the dollar signs leading to a big payout affording her the opportunity to have a little nest egg to take into retirement.

    Because she is so poorly trained and equipped to do the job she was hired to do, she became enamored of Jodi and due to Travis being a bit of a cad and player, she automatically translated that to a violent perpetrator of physical, emotional and mental abuse. Rather than see this relationship for what it was, simply a sexual based unhealthy relationship where the emotional investment wasn’t balanced, she saw an opportunity to get credit for making a major impact on behalf of domestic abuse.

    At that point whatever professionalism Alyce had went out the window along with her integrity. Martinez and his bulldog style fit her image of what an abuser or bully is. She was determined to stand up to him and let all victims of domestic abuse see that they too could stand up to their abuser. She no longer was testifying, she was only trying to prove a point and her answers were no longer trughful or making sense. She is passive aggressive and I think she enjoyed sparring with Martinez as a way of proving he could not exert power or influence over her.

    Typical of her juvenile attitude and experience level, she thought a trial would be the perfect place to bring family and friends so they could see her in action. Frankly even in civil court this behavior would be unprofessional so I also question how much experience she had testifying at any official court hearing. I suspect most of her work for court cases was nothing more than preparing a basic report as a rubber stamp process.

    Alyce complains about the impact of harassment on her health yet she runs to twitter to set up an account, after all isn’t that what one needs to do in order to have a place where their fans can interact with her? Hopefully there is a lesson here that can be applied to attorneys and expert witnesses that this type of testimony is totally ineffective and a waste of time and money.

    Sadly I think the only thing that LaViolette and Samuels did for this case was provide ample ammunition for an appeal based on ineffective counsel for what competent counsel would have hired the two least qualified experts to provide testimony on the defense strategy. I suspect Jodi will be convicted for her crimes and in that way justice will be served. But at the same time, I fear that her odds for having an appeal or retrial have grown. Makes me wonder if that wasn’t the ultimate strategy of the defense in the first place.

    1. McKealty

      Great response except for the ending.

      I’ve heard this said by more than one person but to me, “They were setting up an appeal from the start” makes no sense whatsoever.

      Firstly, they would not be the lawyers assigned to the case.

      Secondly, starting the entire process (years ago) with just the intent to get an appeal? Why? What is the mindset? Let’s spend years doing this, all with the intent to lose, so we can try again because we can tell the future?

      The argument makes no sense.

      1. Fritzzz

        I heard that it is all too common, especially in criminal procedures, for the defense to constantly cite prosecutorial misconduct throughout a trial just to get it on record in case of an appeal. In many cases such as these, with a guilty verdict, an appeal is a given, so they want as much as possible on record for the new defense attorneys and judge. It will likely be the same prosecutor, but this judges schedule may be tied up in another trial if a new one is allowed and the same defense attorney’s may leave the case or be fired by the defendent-usually the case with a guilty verdict. Also Nurmi has been itching for a withdrawal before this trial started. It was denied the first time, after this I am sure it will be granted. Most criminal cases go through these things to have it formally on record in case of appeal. If it is not on record, there will be nothing to refer to when submitting a request for appeal. That’s all I know. : )

    2. Fritzzz

      I agree. I wouldn’t doubt that this was part of the strategy in the first place. Nurmi’s professionalism is questionable to me. When in comes to the letters. He knew 2 handwriting professionals indicated with high probability that they were forgeries. When Jodi wanted to represent herself, she retained her own ‘expert’ and this lady claims that it was highly probable 1 letter out of 10 was written by Travis. Nurmi had the audacity to ‘squeeze’ that in with Chris Hughes and to also lie to Skye Hughes over the phone in regards to Travis having sexual ‘feelings’ about their son because he wore Spiderman underwear, using these types of persuasions to get them to testify against their murdered friend. Of course, none of this can be corroborated, but can anything Jodi says be corroborated? It’s all ‘hearsay’ as far as I am concerned. Regardless, there are many questionable strategies going on here. The prosecutor is just trying to work to clear up the mess and misrepresentations they are creating throughout this trial through biased witnesses, misinterpreted emails/texts/IMs etc and lies, either blatant or by omission. This is what is very clear to me. And that makes me angry. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for Martinez.

    3. Amy

      “Sadly I think the only thing that LaViolette and Samuels did for this case was provide ample ammunition for an appeal based on ineffective counsel for what competent counsel would have hired the two least qualified experts to provide testimony on the defense strategy. I suspect Jodi will be convicted for her crimes and in that way justice will be served. But at the same time, I fear that her odds for having an appeal or retrial have grown. Makes me wonder if that wasn’t the ultimate strategy of the defense in the first place.”

      In response to what you wrote above, I just don’t understand. How could Jodi appeal for incompetent counsel? Jodi is the one who made all these lies. From what I hear the defense team asked many true “experts” to take the case on after several attempts of being refused. They finally found two people that value money over justice, and accepted the case. How could they get an appeal? I just don’t understand. Why would an appeal be granted because Jodi had a hard time finding an actual expert ally who is willing to claim she has PTSD or was a victim of abuse, and actually believe it enough to sell their perspective to the jury. Jodi is a pathological liar. Just because she (hopefully) gets a guilty verdict doesn’t mean she didn’t have a fair trial and a shot to tell her story. Sometimes someones lies are clearly bigger than they are. If you can’t find someone credible to back you, shouldn’t be reason for an appeal.

      1. Carol

        Just because an appeal is granted doesn’t mean it will be won. It is the norm for murder verdicts, whether death sentence or life without parole, to be appealed many times. Especially death sentence cases. Allowing Nurmi and Jodi to drone on and on for weeks and bring in all sorts of specious information works FOR the Prosecutor – she was given every reasonable opportunity to defend herself, and then some. I really doubt that there will ever be another trial unless someone loses it and strangles someone (LaV, Nurmi, Willmott, Donovan, Herself) in the courtroom. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s more likely that they will attack each other! The other side is much more civil and deferential to appropriate courtroom behavior. JMHO

    4. Lisa K

      I truly don’t think that the defense is purposefully trying to lose this case. I think they have an impossible job with a client that still refuses to cooperate fully with them.

      I do believe that there are legal reasons that could be made to impeach ALV’s testimony. But based on the jurors’ questions, there seems no reason to do so.

  11. 4 EYES

    Many question the cameras in the courtroom as the “cause” for the circus in this trial, and place blame on the media for “selling the tickets.” Perhaps there is some truth behind that, however, it also brings to the fore the processes of our justice system (as well as the circus that is our media, but that’s a different subject.) Because of the camera in the courtroom, how many people learned that jurors can ask questions in AZ (along with a couple other states and a few more counties) and think highly of this process? Citizens are learning how much money is wasted on these high profile cases, how the judicial process works and perhaps have gained an understanding what it takes to try improve it. Citizens also learn that some civil employees who do their jobs thanklessly for years are among the everyday heroes in this country. If not for the cameras, would the Defense Team have been able to sweep this right past the noses of the citizens under the guise of a fair trial, while pulling the ‘legal’ stunts they do? Is a camera to blame (there’s a pun there if you dig for it…) for this? Does the good of having a camera watching this outweigh the bad resulting from it?

    Why is the blame or fault not placed on the individual who is responsible for their own action(s) when the light or the camera is focused on them? Everyone is pretty much aware there is no real privacy anymore (unless you can AFFORD it) so why does one expect to “get away with it??” Perhaps the solution is to have cameras in a few MORE courtrooms….

    1. Lisa K

      Very well said, 4 Eyes. I think I read some of your comments on youtube? Or maybe elsewhere. You had excellent comments there as well.

  12. Sharon

    Babs said everything I would have said, and in a better way than I would have said it. Thanks Babs for allowing me to state my opinion without doing all that typing!

    Alyce was staggeringly unprofessional in her demeanor and responses. Or I should say lack of responses. Of course I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can imagine her “peers” are quite embarrassed by her performance.

    Did she really think that her 30 years’ experience would put her above having to defend her opinions? This is a court of law after all. A court dealing with a very serious charge. Respect for the court and its officers would be the least I would expect from any witness. But this witness decided it would be the Alyce show for a few days. She obfuscated, avoided and took jabs at the prosecutor while looking to her cheering section and the jury for approval – which she was shocked that she didn’t get.

    I’m sorry she’s having health problems and sorry she is dealing with so much backlash, but honestly she should have known better. It’s hard to feel very sorry for someone who would nonchalantly assassinate the character of someone she never met, and only knows through the filter of a proven liar with a huge secondary gain motive. And yes Alyce what you did was character assassination. It is not what Travis did to Jodi. Maybe you should use a dictionary before you spout off terms that have actual meanings and not just the ones you choose to assign to them.

    There, I did a lot of typing after all. Oh well. This woman really raises my ire.

  13. Fritzzz

    I have watched Alyce Laviolete’s presentations as well and she uses a lot of humor to captivate her audience. In the beginning, I feel she thought she could get away with that in court, sadly demonstrating her lack of experience as and EXPERT witness in CRIMINAL court proceedings. It was like she thought she could admonish the prosecutor and wasn’t clear on trial procedure. What she thought was funny showed disrespect to the court, due process, and herself, as an EXPERT WITNESS. It showed that she was INEXPERIENCED, BIASED AND CONFRONTATIONAL. On cross examination, Martinez is suppose to assume the defense witnesses will be hostile and pose his questions as yes/no. It seems like LaViolette took offence to that and didn’t let due process take its course on redirect. CLEARLY INEXPERIENCED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

  14. Nickie

    @MCKEALTY – their two most important experts have been reduced to just lying snake-oil salesmen! and to top it off, look at their last ditch effort (as garnered from web/tv lawyer opinions).. the strategy for Laviolette to have the effrontery to approach Travis’ sister having just dragged his name thru the mud..! She has 35 yrs of court room experience (family welfare): – and – according to her 2, criminal court cases (who knows with her anymore?!) – she sh’d be more than well-versed with the protocol, and sh’d have stood her ground and not give in to ‘the deep pockets’. What she did revealed her inhumanity, thereby casting doubt at her sincerity in her profession and confirming that she is just in it for the money and willing to say/do anthing, in order to win: hey, paint Travis with mud… but she succeeded in just mudding her own name/reputation…!

    1. McKealty

      I understand all of that.

      The argument of starting an entire trial to get an appeal to start another trial makes no sense.

      At which point do they say, “THIS is the trial we are really gonna try”?

      It makes no sense. ALV is a biased gun-for-hire, no doubt but that is not what I was addressing.

  15. Lisa K

    One more thought.

    Did any one notice that ALV mentioned that she “didn’t have a very good retirement” in an answer to a juror’s question?

    My jaw dropped.

    1. Carol

      Absolutely, and it was a totally inappropriate comment and completely self-serving. This woman is the most unprofessional individual I have encountered in a long time, possibly tying Samuels for that honor.

  16. Patty

    Even more egregious than loading the gallery with supporters, LaViolette was also observed approaching Travis’ sister, Samantha, after a recess. While not all of her comments have come to light, one witness to the scene overheard her say, “it’s nothing personal”. Time will tell if this was a legal or ethical violation, but it most certainly reflects poorly on her character. I can’t imagine what she could have possibly been thinking. She had just spent days on the stand, slandering Travis’ memory, and to have the nerve to approach a family member is unconscionable. I don’t know if this was a temporary lapse in judgment or if she’s just so arrogant that she thinks a soft-spoken demeanor can mask a sociopath personality…which, btw, describes the defendant too.

    1. Carol

      You are exactly right. And one of the reasons that she gives for not verifying ANYTHING Jodi told her is that she is not allowed by law to contact the victim’s family. She knew, and the Victim’s Rights Advocate for Travis’s family was sitting right behind them and heard her ignorant and tasteless remark. I believe that’s part of why she has been ordered to return to the court room either today or tomorrow. Should be very interesting to say the least!

  17. Maria C. Santana

    In addition to all the unprofessional behavior noted by others, I found it astonishing that Laviolette brought up the phrase “reasonable doubt” while being cross-examined by the prosecutor on her lack of objective methodology in analyzing Travis Alexander. If I remember correctly, she suddenly claimed out of the blue that she has to look at things using “reasonable doubt” and lectured Juan Martinez how the jury employs the same “reasonable doubt” standard.

    It goes without saying that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal law standard applied to evidence in criminal trials. It has nothing to do with psychology and her gratuitous insertion of it into her testimony exposed that her purpose was to create reasonable doubt. And she was even going to remind the jury of their duty. This is not an impartial expert.

    I was so disgusted by this exchange. I cannot help but believe Laviolette expected this trial to establish her as the premiere expert who can put reasonable doubt in juries deliberating the facts of any woman claiming domestic violence. I believe from that opportunistic statement that she unethically accepted the role of the one who would create reasonable doubt rather than present information impartially and that she fully expected to benefit professionally for years to come if Jodi should be acquitted.

    She’s a disgrace.

  18. Myrtle

    just a foot note Martinez wanted answers the witness did not want to comply.judge should have made Laviolette answer the question everytime she did not judge should have given her a fine,I bet she would have started answering then.I cant beleive judge allowed such disrespect

  19. Bradley Hall

    Actually, Dr. Samuel’s mother was in the audience, to support him. He just did not get the chance to mention it in testimony. I think that if he had mentioned his mom, maybe Jodi would have been acquitted.

Leave a Reply