Most Condemning LaViolette Juror Questions

The jurors in the Jodi Arias case are amazingly sharp. They were harder on Ms. LaViolette than they were on Dr. Samuels which suggests they do not see her as credible. Their questions were scathing and sarcastic. They seemed to be taunting Ms. LaViolette. They also don’t seem to be buying Jodi’s version of events. I have a compiled a list of some of the most condemning jury questions posed to Ms. LaViolette. snapshot_002

Q1. Since you are hired for this case to look into Travis and Jodi’s relationship to determine whether or not this was an abusive relationship, why would you not look further into Travis’s texts about him fearing Jodi. Do you feel this may have been important?

 Q.2 On the one side, we have the multiple verbal slurs, a slap, shove, chokehold, and a lunge perpetrated on Jodi. On the other we have a gunshot to the head, a 4-inch deep slit throat and close to 30 stab wounds delivered by Jodi to Travis. Is not the perpetrator of the greatest domestic violence Jodi? 

Q3. When Jodi went to confront Bianca about being with Matt McCartney can’t that be seen as she did it because she was jealous? 

Q4. Jodi went through Travis’s emails, text messages and his inbox of his MySpace page. Did you take any of that into consideration when making your assessment? 

Q5. Please explain why you feel Jodi is not manipulative either before or after the killing based on your review of statements and interviews. 

Q6. In all the evidence you reviewed was there any indication anywhere of Travis claiming stalking by anyone else other than Jodi? 

Q.7 In the hypothetical given by Mr. Martinez about it being possible Travis was the one who told Jodi he wanted her to leave, if that were true, then isn’t it likely Travis never hit her that day? 

Q8. Can you explain how Ms. Arias can remember physical abuse incidents so vividly but does not write anything, not even a reference to her feelings in the journal? 

Q9. You have many years of experience dealing with abusive men, is that correct? If so, wouldn’t by far the majority of men you have dealt with throughout your career been abusive? 

Q10. Is it possible your view of men in general is skewed or biased toward being abusive? 

Q11. How many men have you testified for in criminal court? 

Q12. Do you handle cases where the female is the abuser? 

Q13. Of the times you’ve testified in other cases, how many of these were in defense of men? 

Q14. Of the 18 forensic cases, how many were cases where the male was the victim of abuse and not a perpetrator? 

Q15. You said other sources said Jodi was not manipulative, who are the sources? 

Q16. If the defendant feels she has a high IQ, is it possible she would try to outsmart psychological tests? 

Q17. Jodi’s old friend stated she was manipulative and liked to play the victim. Even though that was in high school, is it possible that those traits would stay with Jodi as she got older? 

Q18. Is there any reason we should believe that Jodi has not manipulated you as she has others? 

Q19. Why have you looked at Ms. Arias multiple times during the cross-examination with the prosecutor when there are breaks and sidebars to meet eyes with Jodi and give her a small, warm smile? 

Q20. Do you have personal feelings for Jodi or feel sorry for her? 

Q21. On April 9th at approximately 11:33 AM when discussing Jodi being manipulative at the Purple Plum and what the waitress said about Jodi when the prosecutor was marking the exhibit you looked at Jodi, gave a half-smile and shrugged your shoulders. Why do you keep doing this? 

Q.22 Considering the lies Jodi told after killing Travis why would you believe the things she told you happened before the killing? 

Q.23 When interviewing Jodi, you claim you did not ask leading questions. If someone asks a specific question unless it’s a simple yes or no response, would you consider that a leading question? 

Q24. You say Travis gives no indication of being stalked, displays no fearful behavior and continued his contact with Jodi of his own accord. How do you reconcile Jodi’s claim of domestic violence if she continued her contact with Travis of her own accord. Where was her fearful behavior? 

Q.25 You stated that it would be beneficial for Jodi to write things she was lying about in her journal to “buck up” her story. How would she write about these things in her journal if her story didn’t change until well after the killing, hypothetically speaking? 

Q.26 You say Jodi’s lies started after she killed Travis, how could you possibly know this? 

Q27. Regarding the text message from Travis to Jodi where he is upset about her BS story from Michelle K or Alena. What was the BS story and where did you get the story from? You stated that Travis was the one lying in this message. How do you know this for sure? How can you know that Jodi’s BS story is not a lie, not the subject but the actual story that was told?

Q28. You seem to believe that when the argument began between Jodi and Travis prior to the Havasupai trip when he followed her upstairs, that he only wanted to pursue an argument. How do you know he did not want to get the issue resolved and calm her and may have embarrassed at her behavior in front of the Freemans? 

Q29. You stated that you saw no signs of evidence of Travis feeling or experiencing sexual degradation at the hands of Jodi, noting his desire to see Jodi in California, his actions on the sex call and comments in various texts, instant messages, etc. Couldn’t that same argument be made regarding Jodi’s alleged sexual degradation given her desire to see Travis, her actions on the sex call and various comments in instant messages, texts, etc? 

Q30. You testified writings could have supported her statements, however, is it possible the incidents of abuse reported by Jodi were reported after the fact as a secondary gain to benefit her? 

Q31. Do you have any evidence other than Jodi’s word that Travis made her tear out pages in her journal and write only positive things? 

Q32. Who from Jodi’s past did you interview that you were able to rule out Jodi’s manipulative behavior being a pattern? 

Q33. You told us at the beginning of your testimony that you liked to meet with each individual before analyzing the relationship. We have heard Jodi’s side of the story. Can you tell us Travis’s side of the story? 

Q34. Are you confused on any of the details of that afternoon [of the murder]? 

Q35. If it is normal to keep information about one’s sexual life private, why do you think Travis’s attempts to keep those things private is deceptive? 

Q.36 Did you ever see evidence that Jodi was openly sharing all of her most private sexual details with her friends and family? Would you consider that deceptive? 

Q.37 You bought Ms. Arias books, apologized upon meeting her, and ordered her a magazine subscription. Did you do anything else to establish a relationship with Jodi? 

Q38. Have you given her anything else? 

Q39. Have you had any physical contact with her, hugs, friendly touching, etc.? 

Q40. How do you know Jodi received Spiderman underwear from Travis on Valentine’s Day? Did you see them, pictures or anything else? 

Q41. Other than what Jodi has told you, what other sources did you see evidence of physical violence by Travis? 

Q42. Regarding nonverbal communication, do you think that you can read through a string of emails, text messages, instant messages between two people and know exactly what the nonverbal communication is? How do you know tone, meaning, inside jokes and the meaning if you cannot get both sides of the story? 

Q42. You mentioned that Travis was in a seven year relationship with Deanna. Are you aware of anyone interviewing her to determine if she was a victim or survivor? Did you interview her? 

Q43. You keep saying that Jodi does not match your definition of manipulative. Is it possible that your definition of manipulation differs from others? Is it possible that your definition is wrong? 

Q44. Yesterday you were asked about Jodi being an abuser toward her mother and you stated it was normal teenage behavior. Do you honestly believe that hitting and kicking your parents is normal behavior at any age?

9 thoughts on “Most Condemning LaViolette Juror Questions

  1. I think one reason people (myself included) are so passionate about the testimony of Ms. LaViolette is we feel a need to protect Travis, he no longer has a voice to tell his side of the story.
    Ms. LaViolette is not part of the jury, she had the ability to talk with all of Travis’s friends and at least get a better picture of some of the things Jodi was accused of: slashing tires, hacking into bank accounts, hacking into his e-mail, hacking into his myspace and facebook accounts, etc.. The things she used to come to her opinion are flawed. Jodi’s journals have many lies in them. Everything she had written after June 4th is written to make her appear innocent and are proven lies, how do we know that she did not write the journal entries just prior to the 4th, after the 4th. Just because it has a date on it doesn’t mean it was actually written on said date. Jodi herself, who had fabricated 2 previous accounts of what happened, why should the 3rd account be accepted as the truth.
    I believe the defendant deserves a fair trial, I do not think she deserves a BS trial. Dragging a victim through the mud without doing a competent job of evaluating the situation is just “Wrong”. I would not have the same feelings towards Ms. LaViolette’s testimony if I thought she had done an unbiased review of the evidence. I think the juror questions mimic how a lot of people feel, Ms. LaViolette had a biased opinion and an agenda.

    • She chose not to interview anybody that could shed a good light on Travis. She says she read his blog, but all she quoted from it was his child abuse part. She also failed to tell the full story of that. He left that abusive home at the age of 10 and went to a good, loving Christian home with his grandmother. Jodi left her “supposed” abusive home at 15 and moved in with a weirdo drug addict. Travis bettered himself throughout his life. Jodi never did. She is a waste to humanity. God gave her talents, but she was too arrogant and self absorbed with what she thought was her own beauty to fulfill those talents. Now from jail she is attempting to? She threw her life away, and people are stupid to be buying this crap now.

  2. LaViolette obviously could not shed her normal role an advocate for battered women. She is grotesquely biased in favour of Jodi Arias and has done reputation a great harm. Her behaviour on the witness stand has been disgraceful

  3. The juror questions were indeed enlightening and must have been devastating to the defence – by any measure there was nothing to suggest that they regarded this witness as at all credible.
    Although not used here in Australian courts, juror questioning is a most interesting concept, and appeals as as a most helpful tool for a panel of lay-persons seeking the truth.
    The defence’s quite deliberate ploy to prolong trial proceedings has spectacularly backfired on them, and it was not difficult to detect much hostility from the tone of the juror’s questions. If the defence believed this ploy would lessen the possibility of a death sentence being returned on the accused, it appears to have actually advanced the possibility of such an outcome.
    There has been no sign of remorse from the accused, nor has there been any consideration of a positive nature towards the victim from either ‘expert’ witness, particularly from LV who has shown a total lack of empathy towards the victim or his family, and steadfastly refuses to concede that he was the only apparent victim of any real violence – and this in the most horrific circumstances imaginable. In fact, the ‘expert’ witnesses have demonstrated a dogged determination to condemn the victim, and daily the public watch his family continue to suffer – their outrage growing and the backlash becoming more severe.
    As in the commission of the murder, there has been an overkill in this trial – this time by the defence. If ever ‘expert’ witnesses were overexposed, it was Samuels and La Violette, particularly the latter as the longer she was in the witness box the greater the frustration and anger she engendered – reflected in the juror’s questions. Throughout, the victim’s family has stoically withstood an ordeal no-one should have to endure. If, as reported LV approached a member of the victim’s family during a recess, her actions were not only reprehensible, but to my knowledge unlawful.
    Public outrage at LV’s testimony is completely understandable. As a so-called experienced courtroom expert, she would have been fully aware of what she was doing and that there would be repercussions. Indeed she alluded to that when stated on entering the witness box that she had a practice but wondered whether she would have one to go back to ‘after this’ (or words to that effect) – a staggering statement from an expert who hadn’t yet commenced their testimony.
    Whoever devised the defence that the victim in this heinous crime was the perpetrator of the violence, and that it was a case of self-defence – and it is obvious it was the accused – certainly does not possess an IQ of Einstein proportions.
    To aid and abet such a defence, as La Violette has done, is below contempt.

    • You’re absolutely right in your analysis. I just thought I disliked Samuels. My contempt for him is nothing compared to this “so called” DV expert. She is as disgusting as Jodi Arias, and that is VERY disgusting. I know Nurmi did not want to do this trial, and I wonder if such a shoddy job being done his intention was, “let her hang if you make me do this”. He sits there picking his nose, and that is enough to disgust anybody. The murderer and Wilmott sit there laughing it up like they’re on a game show or something. I do not think if you banged all three of those heads together, you would come up with even enough matter to make ONE brain. I am just so sorry that after loosing their brother, this family has had to sit through this torture. God bless them and bring them justice.

      • Nurmi is being grossly overcompensated for having to have stayed on JA’s case. The AZ tax payers are footing the bill. I had known the exact hourly amount (definitely in the 100’s of dollars per hour) that the court was going to compensate him but I now forget. You can Google it and find out. Anyways, it was a good way into the case that Nurmi decided that further taking on JA’s case was a lose-lose situation and wanted out. Claimed the excuse to be that he “wanted to start up his own practice” and the amount of time that the JA case was taking from him wasn’t allowing him to do that. So, the court realizing that it was way too late in the duhfense’s case and way too close to trial actually starting for a new duhfense lawyer to come on board so the court offered Nurmi and outrageous compensation per hour as an incentive to stay on the case and vigorously “duh-fend his client”. The court was trying to make it as honest of an effort on Nurmi’s part to see to it that he does so and create as little of a possibility that he would hold disdain for his client and purposely do a shoddy job just because he didn’t want to be there/duh-fend her. By all appearances, it looks to me that Nurmi got his cake and is eating it too by getting overpaid by the AZ taxpayers to just sit there and look so bored/uninterested. Nothing the court can do about it as long as he holds to the claim that he tried his best and met the bare minimums in his filing of motions/objections in order to avoid any possible future appeals.

  4. While I believe Ms LaViolette was an early crusader and probably did some good work on behalf of real DV victims in her past, sadly, in my opinion, she has now lost her objectivity.

    • I think when she decided to go homosexual, and became a man hater was her downfall. Maybe her intentions were good at the beginning, but her dislike for men is very apparent.

Leave a Comment