JODI ARIAS TRIAL: Trial Resumes Today… The Arias Parents… UPDATE: Defense Motion For Jury Sequestration Denied…

The Jodi Arias trial will resume Thursday at 9:30 am Arizona time… that’s 12:30 pm EST.



Nurmi filed a motion to sequester the jury… motion DENIED.


The Jodi Arias trial was canceled unexpectedly around 11:15 am yesterday without word yet on why.   Alyce LaViolette could not continue with her testimony because she was ill.


Prosecutor Juan Martinez was seen leaving  the courtroom out of a side door with the family of victim Travis Alexander.


Watch on your HLN channel or via live streaming… no commercials!… at

Video of police interrogation of Jodi’s parents were released:

Jodi’s mother:

Jodi’s father:


Over the weekend, the defense filed a motion for a mistrial based on information gathered while questioning each juror individually about the prosecutor, Juan Martinez’ “misconduct.”

jodi juan


jodi travis ribbon

travis jodi

Arias is on trial for killing her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander on June 4, 2008. Arias’ attorneys base their motion for a mistrial on information about behaviour by Juror 5 that was discovered in a sealed hearing last Thursday.

According to the motion filed…

“Ms. Arias takes the position that the statements Juror 5 made in front of her fellow jurors amounts to misconduct. Given the evidence that came forward on March 28, 2013, it is beyond legitimate dispute that Juror 5 is not fair and impartial making her unfit to continue as a juror.”

Juror 5 is a married, white female in her 30s. Court observers have said she is the most visible juror from the gallery because she has a “unique hair style.”

jodi judge

Judge Sherry Stephens held the sealed hearing last Thursday to discuss with the jurors whether any of them had witnessed prosecutor Juan Martinez posing for pictures with fans outside the courthouse.


Arias’ attorneys want Juror 5 kicked off the jury if the judge doesn’t grant a mistrial.

jodi nurmi wilmot

Removing Juror 5 may be a remedy, because there are 18 jurors right now. Twelve jurors will be chosen before deliberations, and the rest will be alternates that could be called in deliberate if necessary.

jodi empty chair

2008 interview after Jodi was charged and in jail…


About these ads

266 comments on “JODI ARIAS TRIAL: Trial Resumes Today… The Arias Parents… UPDATE: Defense Motion For Jury Sequestration Denied…

  1. I find it interesting that the defense brings up all the women Travis was “abusive” to. In my opinion it just shows that all those other women including the 18 year old, were smart enough not to take it! Jodi was the only one that obviously liked it!

    • Exactly, how can anyone forget the text she sent Travis “my ____ needs a good pounding” and she wasn’t talking about the front…

      • Obviously anything a woman wants is not abuse, but if a Man wants it, it is by definition “abuse”…..

        I am disgusted by the defense in this case!

  2. Hey wymyn ;) ….I just wanted to let you all know I’ve watched the 1st 11 minutes of Laviolette at Long Beach (this is the long version of her talk, 1 1/2 hours total) & it is already so much worse than I thought. I’ve been picturing Juan Martinez watching this (which he must have – I hope he got as many laughs as I have been having – have to pause a lot to catch my breath & not miss another nugget like the “fact” that a culture has gods & goddesses means the society has “balance” between the genders, or that women had flatter chests, as we can see in ancient sculpture – she must have missed the Venus of Willendorf)

    The other thing that immediately struck me is that Jodi’s defense must not have seen this video. Laviolette bases her discussion of history “throughout the centuries” on “The Chalice & The Blade” which uses facts from (Laviolette’s own words) “archeology & whatever” to tell how cultures were once balanced, with women as warriors & men watching the kids, until “gradually” cultures shifted to being based on domination, violence, hierarchy, private property, male domination & warlike culture. Oh – another “historical” nugget – in the 17th And 16th century, women were hung for witchcraft (ignoring the facts that 1. there was only one episode of witch trials in American history, in which men were also killed – one by pressing – and some of the women were released… oh, and there’s good evidence that politics & property disputes were at the root of the initial accusations)

    Anyway, I think the defense must have chose their “expert” based on the title of her book alone. I would never bring someone into court as an expert who seems to have such a weak grasp of what constitutes evidence!

    Also, have to say, Laviolette seems to have a *Lot* of double standards – warriors are bad, unless they are women (then they’re strong). Women who want to enhance their appearance can be made fun of. Hurting men is funny (she laughingly describes a petroglyph from South America which shows a woman in labor with strings tied around her male partner’s privates that she pulls on when she has a contraction – she says she gives this to her men’s group as an empathy lesson.)

    I paused just as she was starting to describe how our justice system evolved. I’ll get in one more installment before I leave for work.

    • Sorry – the “historical nugget” is that in the 17th & 16th C, witches were hung in America. There really was only one witch hunt in the colonies….

    • Wow Trish I am soon much more entertained reading you synopsis of it then I ever would be watching her drone on and on. Thank you so much for your sacrifice of time and um… “brain fever.”

        • madepiley, Thanks so much – it’s so rewarding to have an audience.

          I also think that what drives me to continue watching & taking notes is the realization that the purveyor of this is fluff is being sold to police departments, social service organizations, courts & the public as a source of valid information about relationships, families & violence. It’s so remarkable & sad.

    • Trish as it seems you have a lot of insight into the Lavatory woman I thought you might have your opinion on what was just on Dr.Drew. I was shocked. That woman seems to have some kind of entitlement in that courtroom. One of Drews in court watchers said that thursday Lav asked for a break just five min. before a break was coming up. The judge ok”d it. While everyone was filing out most had been watching juror number five she was watching Lavatory. She walked right over to Travis sister Samantha. She had been one of the last to leave the courtroom. She went over and was in her face talking at her and waving her arms. What the hell? She who has been in numerous courtrooms as witness pulls something so wrong and I believe illegal that its just inconceivable….Who the hell is this woman? I mean the judge has even went so far as to do nothing when she continually answers questions from Martinez with explanations instead of yes and no . She has been told constantly to answer yes and no but ignores it and so does the judge. Is this woman that important? What the hell is wrong with that judge? She seems to be letting a lot go on with the defence and yet seems to not do the same for prosecution. Biased a little? Anyways, the lady who witnessed the whole thing with Lavatory went into lobby and told the Drew director(whoever was in charge). She didn’t get to Martinez but she did go to Samantha. She told her that she did not have to have a witness come up to her and have any conversation with her. That it was pretty much illegal. She said yes that she had reported it to Mr.Martinez and he was taking care of it. So…..Am wondering if he is going to kick that womans ass and bring that up to let everyone know that maybe this woman is a bully or at least very unprofessional….I wonder if anyone else saw this?

      • Ya know, I think I saw Lavoatory(love it) signal the defense attorney for a break once last week too. I just cant help but think of the big sad seizure scene in My Sister’s Keeper. I wonder if she has issues like that?

        • I didn’t see that movie, so I’m not sure I get the context ;p

          I think she took on the case for one simple reason – she is obsessed with the construct of Victim-ess v. He-batterer.

          Oh, and watching her “talk” about gender & fairy tales (which is about neither, really), I think she just really really wishes she had written “Wicked”

      • I was watching DR Drew last night as my hubby & I were getting ready to go out, so I heard the audio, but didn’t see the demo of the arm-waving (I ran to the TV, but they were past it by the time I got there)

        Considering that, as a defense “expert” she could have interviewed Travis’ family *before* the trial to get CONTEXT besides what Jodi claimed & her reading of Travis & other girls’ texts/IMs thru her Victim-ess/He-batterer goggles, the appallingness of this act is just multiplied!

        I was also disgusted by the description of the “pit crew” she has in the audience – now it becomes clear why, when she said, “Mr Martinez, are you angry at me?” there was laughter in the gallery. I couldn’t imagine that anyone who loved Travis or truth or justice would have been amused by her smarting off to the prosecutor – especially after the loads of manure she & the other defense witnesses (including Jodi) have been spreading in court.

        • As for the judge letting her ramble in response to yes/no questions, it seems the judge is just weary of trying to reign her in.

          Seeing her performance on the stand, I am ever more disgusted that they permitted her to be an expert witness – there’s no evidence that Travis did anything violent to Jodi, Laviolette’s credentials seem to be limited to writing a book with a title that sounds like it explains relationships in which violence doesn’t cause a break up and her ridiculous “talks” in which she denigrates certain subsets of the female population and promulgates the assumption that controlling/violent persons can hide their true nature until you’re so entangled that you can’t escape (basically giving rationalization to people who keep such relationships going).

          Look at the video minute 42.25-43.00, where she says, “Most of us could live with Ma Barker or Jack the Ripper for about a year…”

          (Here’s my 2 cents about how to reduce your chances of marrying Ma barker or Jack the Ripper – don’t marry someone you don’t know that well yet. There’s no reason to rush. Take the time to observe not just how they treat you, but others – especially people your intended doesn’t have to answer to, like waitstaff, etc.)

          I think she is a bully, she has disrespect for truth, justice, men, women who like feminine accoutrements & women who think they have the capacity to extract themselves from relationships with violent men without help from people like her. I think she hates Martinez more than anything on earth.

          • oh, and most important of all – until you are sure you are with the person you want kids with AND are ready to have kids…..Birth Control!!!!!!!!!

      • Oh, and Morning Laurie, I want to thank you for your kind words about my posts here. I really appreciate being appreciated & having other people who are on-the-ball about these issues to discuss the issues this trial has unearthed.

  3. OMG – the section on the legal system, minute 12-17, is a Must See! First she describes how before the revolution, but not after, women could own property, get educated & have male friends. (After the revolution, Martha Washington inherited all of George’s property) Also, after the revolution, women were “protected from the right to vote” (no mention of all the men ho couldn’t vote, like slaves or men who didn’t own land…),

    But the real fun starts when Alyce tells us that the Old English common law concept of “eminent domain” as “a man’s home is his castle” (actual definition from the free dictionary: “The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character….”)

    Then Laviolette explains that eminent domain/home is his castle “mitigates murder”, because, “What you do to offend that intimate partner can be used as a mitigating factor for killing that partner.” (Old English Common Law recognized the concept of “intimate partner” – wow!)

    She uses the short sentence of Dominique Dunne’s murderer to illustrate how this works. He killed a woman he’d once dated, & got a short sentence ergo crime-of-passion mitigation – even though John Sweeney killed a woman who was no longer his partner, it wasn’t at his house, and the jury didn’t find it was a crime of passion. They found him guilty of 2nd degree murder because the court suppressed his violent history as too prejudicial. He was sentenced to 6 1/2 years, and did 2 1/2 after conviction (and a little over a year pretrial)

    Then Alyce goes back to the laws “protecting women from education, voting, having males friends, etc.. Which is all because at the time women were thought to have a brain the size of a pea & because a uterus heated up with too much education, property, or male friends, could cause “brain fever”, which only happened to people with uteruses. (Here’s a discussion of 19th century views on “brain fever”, which seems to be a term that could cover a lot of head/brain related illnesses suffered by both men & women:

    Ok, need to get ready for work. Plus my head kinda hurts. Maybe reading so much bs can cause Brain Fever!!!!!

  4. Hi, womb-containing-persons! I just watched minutes 17 – 40, and will try to be less in-depth than above – although I thought that was important because Domestic Violence Expert Alyce’s weak grasp of history, evidence & legal concepts deserved detailed critical attention.

    Back to our – presentation? stand up act? lecture? – Alyce reminisces about the 1970-early 80s when battered women’s shelters morphed out of feminist collectives, by a process of “flattening out the hierarchy” & working hard.

    Finally, 25 minutes in, she gets to the fairy-tale stuff, saying some of the audience might be familiar with the material she’s about to do. She says, “I get bore with what I’m thinking, so I make stuff up.” (but I am not making stuff up)

    Alyce says fairy tales are formative & cross cultures, yet doesn’t explore folk stories/motifs over multiple cultures or over an extended period of history, but a single Disney cartoon, starting little audience participation bit in which she asks which heroes/characters people identify with, and riffing on the answers like any stand up comic during the audience participation/heckler prevention portion of the act. Instead of seeking info that might surprise her, by, say constructing a survey to ask what people pretended to be in childhood play, she asks, “What character in Snow White did you pretend to be”?

    Here’s some of her thumbnails of characters from Snow White compiled by Alyce & audience, some familiar with the bit: Father is emotionally impotent, didn’t protect his children & made lousy martial choices; Mother is dead/not a role model; Stepmother wicked, evil, mean (but great clothes!); no one aspires to be dwarves; women with power are bitchy, mean, evil wicked; Heroes are strong, never hurt, handsome, white & rich; Heroines are sweet, helpless, pretty, need rescue, get the man, sleep a lot, depressed, unaware of what was really going on, she wakes up unaware she’d been kissed, mediocre singing voice.

    Alyce claims that society trains people to aspire to fairytale roles and use those roles as standards in adult relationships. She conflates the sweet, pretty, rescue-needing heroines of cartoon stories with adult women being passive, kind compassionate, forgiving & long suffering. Her treatment for this societal problem is to mentor children, providing them role models that “demonstrate the flexibility of male & female roles, that allow people to be who they are and allow them to be successful in a role they choose.”

    I couldn’t help but recall the old 1970s gender-neutral stories for kids, like one about a kid raised as a Little X, neither male nor female, given gender neutral clothes & toys, that confused the adults (the story stops before Little X hits puberty & the delicate situations that would surely bring up) I also can’t help but notice that decades after the marketing of stories & toys designed to not introduce gender roles on kids we have an explosion of Disney Princess Toys, books, linens, costumes, music collections; as well as male action figures that have biceps that are large enough to be characters on their own. Oh, one recent toy Alyce disapprovingly mentions is a Barbie packaged with an Elmo – she calls it “Sesame Streetwalker” – but I recall that Sesame Street has always mixed the puppets with child AND adult characters

    As a woman who likes fashion & is married to a big sports-playing guy, I have to ask if we’re supposed to be free to choose our roles, why are chooses of “traditional” clothing/activities demeaned by this champion of “choosing” and who says that such choices create violent romantic relationships? What’s wrong with play, exaggeration, tradition?

    If I had to describe Alyce’s Snow White bit in one word it would be Superficial.

    next segment: Alyce walks us thru an abusive relationship (I will try to get comments on that up tomorrow, right now a little Nancy Grace will be a refreshing change of pace…..

  5. Finally finished viewing. Fortunately, I have a pack of rice cakes in the house so I didn’t have to gnaw my own arm off! We pick up at minute 40 or 1 hr, 25 min.

    So, Alyce now guides the audience thru the story of a hypothetical battered woman. Begin by remembering how first love felt or how you imagine it would feel if you haven’t experienced it yet (are there children – or Vulcans – in the crowd?). The battering relationship, according to Alyce, begins the way most do. She says that most of us could live with Ma Barker or Jack the Ripper for a year without noticing anything wrong if we were in love with them because they would at that point be on their best behavior and “the energy of new love is bigger than the energy of fear” (But if Ma & Jack are on best behavior, what would there be to fear at that point?)

    Alyce says, “When you’re dealing with people who are abusive, they are much more fear based than rage based. The rage is a compensation for their fear because most of these folks are coming from violent families. That’s one of my little theories.” (Who needs actual citations of research when one has “little theories”?) Another of her little theories is that “We value & honor ourselves by our ability to keep our word.” Alyce claims that “Most of us make promises & commitments based on ignorance. We’re not sure who we’re promising to.”

    You don’t meet someone who says that “I’m an alcoholic, but I don’t drink all the time, just 7 or 8 times a month & we’ll need a slush fund for court fines & court-mandated classes & I’m not going to be emotionally available to you or our kids when I drink……” As if the person would be 1. knowingly & intentionally hiding the truth about himself, 2.the pattern is already fully established & might not develop *later* in the storyline. Alyce says, “I think most people don’t know what they’re getting into.”

    In this storyline, violence only starts after the baby, and you’ve already quit your job because the employer doesn’t do parental leave. Plus, you still love him.

    Alyce says most people would say, that if he hit you, call 911. But Alyce says, “I try not to tell people to do things I wouldn’t do, because there’s a reason I’m not doing them.”

    This is the point in the presentation where we veer off into another storyline – one that Alyce is unaware she is telling. It’s a presentation I will call….

    “Was Dr Frankenstein a Domestic Violence Professional” (min 53.00-53.13, 53.37-54.29)

    Alyce says, “We have built a system where people have learned to lie to us because we have to report them if they tell us the truth.” Then she mentions that at the conclusion of talk in Japan, people stood up or approached her afterwards & admitting abusing their kids. She then says that mandatory reporting is a problem because here if people admit abusing, professionals have to report, that discretion is gone, tying the hands of good, great, & ok, but allowing people who suck to fly under the radar (It is unclear to me whether the “people who suck” are other domestic violence professionals, abusers, both, or some other group like DV worker supervisors).

    I actually had to watch this several times & write it down word-for-word because at this point, Alyce’s grammar was so fragmented that it was difficult to understand her point. But what does come thru is that the very Domestic Violence system that was created thanks to 1970s pioneers such as herself is now something she views as an obstacle. It makes her early comment about enjoying the anarchy of the 1970s/80s suddenly clearer. You’d think that if someone worked for decades to change a scourge on the lives of citizens & on society, and whose work has led to new laws, new government agencies and changes in police procedures, that the person would view the early days as a time of struggle, not a time to be wistful about.

    in the interest of breaking this up a bit, I will continue below….

  6. Ok, ladies & persons, back to our story…..

    The story of a fictional domestic violence victim takes the form of the same sorts of leading questions asked about the audience members’ childhood fairy-tale-inspired play. Even though Alyce goes on multiple extended digressions, I’m going to finish the abused-woman thought experiment, then comment on subtopics below…

    So, the baby is a few months old & he kicks the coffee table & slaps your face, what would you do? I personally think its obvious when she gets the kind of answers that she wants in the interest of moving the storyline where she wants it to go. After some shout outs (including, it seems, 2 women who said they left for good the 1st time they were hit by lovers), Alyce adds, “Oh, I forgot, you quit your job because there’s no parental leave”. Later one she will add that one or both partners has a green card which would get screwed up if the violence comes to light.

    People who get hit get mad. But, according to Alyce, “The physiological energy (sic) of anger tends to peak then go down.” In most cases, there’s a long period of time between physically violent acts, which allows time to recover, to believe it won’t happen again. The isolation that begins early in the relationship builds as you refrain from telling family & friends about the violence because you want people to like your partner, hang out with you, & think you have good taste. So two kinds of values clash:

    not getting hit v. compassion, forgiveness, loving, keeping family together (a woman’s responsibility)

    Also, one or both of you might be gay & outing would complicate social &/or professional life for one or both of you.

    And if he leaves, you have no way to support yourself (…because it’s 1953?)

    Plus he promises to never hit you again, go to AA church & counseling and swears undying love

    Now the victim-ess is coming down from her anger & wondering what to do.

    Alyce says she always worried most about clients who swore from the beginning that they were going to leave (most of her clients, I bet, weren’t coming to her after being hit the 1st time). Alyce expects the struggle to leave will take a while (note: earlier in the talk she said professionals measure success in how fast the clients change. min 38.50)

    Alyce found, after leaving the shelter for a private practice that women with money still worried about leaving – what people would think, job promotions & emotional attachment to the abusers figured into their decision-making. Not only fear & money, but still loving the partner keeps the woman in the relationship.

    Perceptions change over time, so the bottom line a woman created in junior high, that she wouldn’t tolerate cheating, plus apprehension about the future, & the reactions of others restrains her from taking action when the partner behaves badly, turns into a bungee cord. Self esteem begins to erode & we begin to cross our bottom lines.

    The most violent cases usually coincide with the most extreme isolation.

    “We need to be more concerned, I think, with how we assess these cases, so we provide interventions that actually lead to successful outcomes where the people are actually wiling to do the things you want them to do because it seems reasonable for them to do them.” (min 121.05 – 121.23)

  7. This is where I address some of Laviolette’s digressions:

    For a short bit of fun, at min 57.12-57.31, you can actually hear Laviolette saying something word-for-word that she said at Jodi’s trial (the bit about how most men don’t just enter domestic violence perpetrator group therapy)

    Isn’t “A” for Anonymous?

    After speaking at a Girl Scouts anniversary (which i can only hope was the troop leaders & other adults, not actual scouts) she said one woman said, “I need to leave, I have to get to my AA meeting” & another says, “You’re in AA? I’m in OA & ACA.” Another was in ISA & Al Anon. One asks, “Alyce, which one do you go to?” “Weight Watchers. But I really wanted to be an ‘A’.”

    At min 100, she talks about services for battered men for a few seconds, then she talks about how in the early days, before it was mandated by law that group therapy for abusers be single-gender groups, they allowed women into the abuser/anger management groups. But “It didn’t work out so well” because one of the men stalked a woman who joined the group. But, on the bright side, “The one thing that was beneficial was that the women from the outset, and I think it was because of gender kinds of things as well” would admit right off the bat “I did this, I did that & I did the other thing, and the men said, ‘oh my God, I’ve been in this group for so long and I still blame my wife.” All I can say is, “Remarkable.”

    Alyce chooses to close her talk by saying power is choice. “The more choices we have the more power we have. That we redefine power in this culture to talk about collaborative decision-making, that we redefine power to mean sharing responsibility, moving things along the way we care about moving them along without intimidating or hurting other people.”

    Then there’s announcements about another workshop…..

    • Yeah I hope it wasn’t meeting with the scouts either… can you imagine? What sorta patch is THAT tomfoolery worth? Surprised ole girl didn’t just head on over to the boyscouts and chastise them for learning to tie knots, KNOWING that alls they are ever gonna use that knowledge for is to tie up their woman. I feel like I can state loud and proud now that I have read everything that you found out about Aylce LaViolette that I am 100 times more of a feminist then she could ever dream of being. Know why? Because I am fully aware of our power as women and I don’t need some muckity muck telling me that the world is stacked against me from birth and its a mans world….pffft I know better. can it Alyce. This is the only Alice I want to hear from

  8. Now, for my thoughts on Alyce Laviolette’s work, from watching this talk & her testimony at the Jodi Arias Trial.

    The first problem I notice about Alyce is that all her observations occur in a small, dense bubble. The interactions that she uses to form her opinions are with people who are a select subgroup in our culture: people whose romantic relationships &/or families are so messed up that they are either seeking – or have been forced by a court to seek – intervention by the sorts of professionals Alyce has worked with for decades. People who have happy adult romances, marriages & families don’t wind up in her office. Women who don’t take no guff and go thru with dumping a guy the first time he gets violent don’t seek the help of professionals like Alyce Laviolette. In other words, she has a group she studies, but no control group, so she winds up assuming that all women have similar difficulties to the women who are her clients, and all men create the sorts of difficulties that make women end up getting professional advice from Alyce & her colleagues.

    Another problem is that Alyce has, shall we say, a strong personality. She has an agenda, say, to show an audience that the fairy tales they learned as children inform their adult decisions, and she asks her audience leading questions, so their answers will support her claim. Instead of asking, “What did you like to pretend to be as a kid?” Alyce says, “Which character in Snow White did you pretend to be?” This drastically narrows the variety of data she is likely to encounter.

    Because Alyce (& professionals of her ilk) come to the table with her box to put us all into, something very important gets lost. Not only are all women not victims, and all men not batterers, but sometimes men are victims & women are violent. Because of the gender divide in discussions of intimate violence, the fact of relationships in which there is mutual combat is lost. Because there’s a box for women/victims and one for men/abusers, Alyce can with a straight face make the claim that a violent, vicious woman like Jodi is a victim and Travis, who left no evidence of violence, cruelty or criminality was “abusive”. But outside the bubble Laviolette lives & works in, it’s obvious that Jodi is a savage murderer and Travis and his family in no way deserve what she did.

    Alyce also seems blissfully unaware that some psychology professionals don’t just think about things & share “little theories” with audiences of their co-workers & friends, but actually try to apply the scientific method to finding out whether a theory about how people behave is accurate or not. There’s a whole world of scientific literature that might inform someone who was interested in finding out the dynamics of unhappy romantic, domestic, intimate & family relationships.

    As an “expert” witness, I think Alyce is superfluous. Any adult citizen eligible for jury duty can listen to Jodi tell the story herself, to Jodi & Travis’s diaries, texts & IMs & friends/family/co-workers, look at the evidence & make a reasonable verdict. Alyce has nothing to say about the players in this horrible drama that adds anything of any importance.

    I feel like I’ve gone on an awfully long time, so I thank anyone who reads all my comments, and I understand it if long blocks about Laviolette are too much for some visitors here.

    • Thank you Triish, I thoroughly enjoyed them and the time you took to watch Alice. BTW, I don’t believe Travis abused her. I believe Jodi went after him and to get what she wanted she did what it took to get it. Some of it may not have been pleasant but she made the choice.

      • Thanks – I’m so glad you enjoyed my comments. It’s really fun to have an audience for my musings.

        i don’t believe that Travis abused Jodi and what slim evidence they have of him being anything less than wanting to spend time with her is either 1. after they broke up (I couldn’t believe at the trial when Alyce was acting like it was some sort of DV violation against the “relationship’ for Travis to date Months after he & Jodi broke up) or 2. planted by Jodi when she hacked into his facebook, text messages, & IMs.

  9. Thank you for the recap Trish. Even if she has all the degrees in the world and probably even some personal experience or history with abuse and or violence. Bottom line is she droned on at this trial as a paid expert for the defense of a known liar and admitted killer. Betcha dollars to donuts she will write a book about this trial, too.

    • I bet you are right. I wonder if any of her past “clients” knew that she would just end up using their stories as goofy lil ancedotes? would it even matter? Since the majority of her “work” is court ordered and at tax payers expense.

      • I bet she gets away with it because court-ordered treatment usually entails signing waivers of confidentiality.

        As for her anecdotes, I find it hard to believe that she’s run into so many people whose romances have such strong parallels to how Alyce thinks “abusive relationships” develop.

        I wonder how Alyce would defend the client if she were Platinum Jodi instead of Bookwork Jodi.

        • She would prolly try to say that Travis MADE her bleach her hair…. and then go into all the really ugly parts of Mormon history. Its not been talked about much in this trial but…… Arias aint white.

          • OMG – ids it just me, or does this sound suspiciously similar to, I dunno, the secret scientology scriptures, or the plot of Superman?

            • Joseph Smith “known for his tall tales” – what a nice way describing someone convicted of fraud

              • It seems like an awful lot of work to worm his way out of trouble with his wife for fooling around with other women…..

  10. @ Trish, what an incredible job you have done breaking down Alyce’s presentation. I admire you patience in getting through the whole presentation, LOL. It is truly wonderful to have a place to make your arguments, express your opinions- thank you Ms. SH. I am so looking forward to Quan Martinez sinking his teeth into LaToilette tomorrow and exposing her for the dirty quacky rat she has become. For me, I don’t dislike Ms Toilet for being an expert witness for Jodi. Everyone is entitled to a defense which includes expert witnesses. However, I think it is very telling the only person possibly willing to be the expert witness for Jodi is Alyce LaToilette. It is the way she has gone about it that makes my brain quiver with disgust. She very strategically refused to interview any of Travis’s family/coworkers/friends/bosses/ministers to truly evaluate the relationship between Travis and Jodi. She could only testify this on this ridiculous theory of battered woman syndrome if she only reviewed the documents and conversations with Jodi. She shows no hint of remorse for manipulating the truth. I think this goes over and beyond the duties of a defense witness. The timing of Ms Toilets book release during the same month she testifies is so far out of line, I just cant think of the words to accurately express how disturbing the book release is this month. I am having a hard time swallowing it is even legal to profit in such an underhanded way. Ms Toilets ego and narcism like her client Jodi, will hopefully backfire and she will make no profit what so ever. The book is not even current and was written over a decade ago. It goes to show Alyce LaToilette is all about the money and has no problem crawling in bed with the devil. I apologize my points are all over the place, the disgust I feel is overwhelming. I am glad others question those text Travis is being accused of writing to Jodi. BUT even if he did write them, there is no telling what she did to infuriate him so much, maybe she kicked his dog, who really knows. Again, I am so looking forward for tomorrow! Glad I work from home so I can watch!

    • @mamarj,

      Thanks so much for reading & caring about what I’ve written. Having such an attentive & thoughtful audience for my thoughts is very rewarding. I, too, am home today (I work weekends & during the week make & sell watercolors & jewelry – I listen to court trials while I work…) Also, today is my birthday, so what a great present to be able to watch Juan dismantle this bogus defense witness – then go on a date with my hubs!

      I agree that everyone is entitled a defense and defense witnesses – but what I most vigorously disagree with is the idea that the defense does not have to have any evidence to back up their claims – especially when those claims take the form of character assassination of the person who is the victim of murder. The defense is surely entitled to subpoena people to testify, gather & test evidence & provide an alternate theory of what explains the facts. But the problem is that, especially in cases when women murder men they’ve had romantic entanglements with, courts allow claims with no facts to back them up. Imagine how the case would go if Travis had stalked Jodi, snuck in thru her doggie door, followed her on dates, drove 1000 miles & knifed & shot her – y’think Laviolette would testify how “abuse” had caused him to do this?

      I think people like Laviolette infantilize adult women by making it sound like we’re too weak to spot & leave a man who treats us badly (only someone who only “talks” to women who don’t leave can think that no women ever do!), and by claiming that women become so traumatized not jut by violence but by “verbal abuse” (i.e. words – whatever happened to “sticks & stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?) that we are trapped like we live on a giant flypaper when we get married/live together.

      As for the date of Laviolette’s book release – when I first graduated college, I worked in publishing. Release dates for books are usually decided about a year out – unless it’s one of those of-the-moment kind of books that get thrown together to capitalize on some big event. Until I see facts that show she cooked up the reprint recently, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that the new edition was already in the works.

      As for her writing abook about Jodi’s case – after Juan gets thru with her, I doubt Alyce will want to do that…

      • Happy B-Day Trish!!! I hope it will be a good afternoon for you and terrible for the Ms Toilet, LOL. WIth regard to the above and the defense expert witnesses, thank you for expressing what I was not able to convey. I just don’t understand how an expert would be willing only to take a portion of the pieces and make an absolute theory. It seems so dishonest. I signed a petition this weekend for Travis Alexander law- for it to be illegal to attack the character of a murdered victim.

        • Thanks, mamarj! So far, I am enjoying this immensely!

          Just reading your comments, I figured you were thinking about the defense along the same lines I am.

          Also, I love how you call her Ms LaToillette! Hilarious!

  11. Its inappropriate video time …this one works here OR over on the RHOA thread pertaining to Kenya Moore.

  12. Hi everybody! Commercial on – couple of quick things

    1. In my coverage of Laviolette digressions, I forgot one, She has visited women who’ve killed husbands in prison & says that they “weren’t allowed a complete defense” (i.e., no witness like her blowing fact-free claims) & “it’s great they’re getting out soon”.

    Oh boy -the video is on HLN (oh, no talking heads without criticizing Juan with no soundtrack of Laviolette…)

    Let’s compare Laviolette’s Snow White v. Jodi

    Laviolette’s Snow White Jodi
    married not married
    “fights” but no violence before marriage “fights” but no violence (can’t marry now)
    had child no child
    1st violence after child violence before any child born
    quit job because no parental leave quit job to move to Mesa (After break up)
    won’t leave or call cops 1st time she’s hit no evidence she’s hit by Travis

    One more remark – Laviolette talks in the video about how great if would be if everyone is free to make their own choices. But she seems to make the assumption that typical female/male clothing, jobs, behavior, entertainment are somehow forced on us. She doesn’t seem to consider the idea that maybe what is typical for the genders is typical because it is the aggregate of many people making similar choices. I love my husband, but the only soccer games I ever watch are the ones he plays in (and not even all of those – I like it that both of us have interests separate from what we do together. I go to the rare soccer game, he occasionally visits my street art booth)

    Oh, Juan’s back!

  13. Oops, the message board mingled my columns

    Let’s try againLet’s compare Laviolette’s Snow White v. Jodi

    Laviolette’s Snow White
    “fights” but no violence before marriage
    1st violence after child violence before any child born
    won’t leave or call cops 1st time she’s hit
    complications like money, job, gender identity, sexual orientation, green card

    not married
    “fights” but no violence in a not married time period
    no child
    quit job to move to Mesa
    no evidence she was hit by Travis
    none of the complications

    back to Juan – go Juan!

  14. Why is Laviolette so resisting the concept of saying what timeframe something happens? WHat is “context” if not the facts surrounding the events being discussed?

    Now he’s got her reading testimony from last week.

    Oh, the HLN woman said she wonders if they both wish they could take a break — are you kidding? Juan lives for this, I’m sure!!!

  15. Salem Witch Trials??? She actually did the murder.excuse me, PRE-MEDITATED MURDER!! LaViolette is just as demented as ja….And a total disgrace to abused “person’s”. Yes MEN CAN BE ABUSED AS WELL! I’m starting to think perhaps ja and laviolette are having an affair, or at the least laviolette is wanting to have an affair!!! It’s the only reason that I can think of that she would be so biased in her evaluation. I have lived through an abusive relationship, and believe me, she shows ABSOLUTLY NO SIGNS OF ABUSE WHAT SO EVER! This has been a sham from the very first. And ALL of it due to ja and her attorneys and their lame A– witnesses!! It is no longer a trial for jaits a trial for poor Travis Alexander!! And now look they are screaming.Mistrial!! .. On the basis that Martinez is actually getting tired of the BS and trying to make poor..poor ja look bad, by adding FACTS to the courtroom!! Its not obvious at all that ja is ordering her attorneys to file these stupid motions! And I for one am getting tired of all the BS that she has thrown into this court case!! I truly think that Travis should have (in reality) actually broke ALL of her fingers! Then she wouldnt be able to take her obsessive little notes during court! By the way.who smiles when they are in court facing the death penalty? Oh yea, someone who thinks they have the IQ of Albert Einstien and believe they will be walking free, not to mention becoming a celebrity, after brutally premeditating and murdering someone because they decided they didnt want to take them on a trip! WHAT A JOKE!!!!

    • @Christy Cain – thanks for contributing to the dissection of Laviolette’s “expertise”.

      Also, did you hear that Laviolette approached one or more members of Travis’ family during a recess on Thursday? As an “expert” witness, she could have interviewed them before the trial to get a fuller picture of Travis, who she couldn’t interview thanks to Jodi. But all she did was read some of Jodi’s diaries, some of the text messages between Jodi & Travis and between Travis & other girls, talk to Jodi in person at the jail – oh, and buy Jodi books &/or magazine subscriptions (I wonder if those were the mags Jodi used to try to smuggle out messages to Matt McCartney…?)

      If you *really* want to blow a head gasket, watch “Gender Fairytales and Domestic Violence” at:
      minute 20.32-21.40 (the “good old days” of feminist collective/domestic violence shelter “anarchy”)
      then at:
      minute 53.00-54.51 (the system “forces people to lie to us because of mandatory reporting” & “ties the hands of people who are great, good & ok at what they do…”

      She seems to be implying that now, in the time period in which police, social workers & courts have created procedures for handling men abusing their women, those procedures are an obstacle to “really good work”.

      Not only do I know that men can be abused, too, I have a relative who is a really sweet guy who married a woman who beat him back in the 1970s. It seems to me that there’s been no progress towards equality in terms of the fact that men who are assaulted, stalked or put in fear by are still laughed at in public & by police – as if women can’t get guns & women have never been convicted of murder. Another ugly fact is that men are as likely to be abused by lovers, but when women attack male lovers they are far more likely to use weapons.

      Although she made a few cursory comment about men victims late in her video & the trial about the possibility of male victims of domestic violence (I think it was day 4 of her direct testimony), this woman has Zero compassion for male victims – in fact, if you listen to the video (min 37.25), she lists “compassion” as one of the qualities that make women vulnerable to being abused as adults – as if one can’t have both compassion and enough brains/self respect to not stay with men who beat them. Laviolette doesn’t put much thought or effort into the problems of men who are abused by women, and the way she talks about Travis in court shows that even when she gives the idea of male victims lip service, she doesn’t really mean it. She just wants “Team Wimmin” to vanquish “Team men” – even if it means championing a vicious, violent sociopath like Jodi.

      Laviolette has no interest in any form of relationship but Victim-ess and He-batterer.

      I’m not even sure if Laviolette’s goal is even reducing violence in interpersonal relationships – she assumes that women can’t spot the kind of troubled man who might become violent before marrying him & won’t escape when he does become violent
      later. She assumes all male/female intimate partnerships follow the pattern she sees in people who get her professional help after years of violence in their homes. (She even mocks the idea that women who are hit once would actually leave the guy) Her bubble doesn’t include information about people who 1. spot possibly troubled partners & don’t get entangled in the first place, 2. people who manage to establish mutually loving & respectful relationships. 3. relationships that involve mutual combat. Because, except for #3, none of them seek her help – and in the case of #3, would just impose the Victim-ess/He-batterer template over the situation, & ignore female violence as she has ignored Jodi’s violence).The only group she deals with are those who experience violence & either stay or keep coming back. Because of this, she can’t do one really helpful thing – study the differences between what people like her clients do, and what other people do, to find the critical clues that might help people who might otherwise end up like her clients in the future to escape sooner.

      I also find it hard to believe that all the people she encounters are in relationships in which the violent person shows no signs of trouble until the couple is married, raising a kid & financially entangled. And by her taking that as a “given” Alyce misses the opportunity to explore possible early clues that people could spot before they are so emotionally attached &/or financially entangled that they want to look for excuses to stay instead of ways to escape.

      There actually are early warning signs for people who are likely to become violent in relationships – Gavin DeBecker’s “The Gift of Fear” is a very good book about how to spot ‘em earlier & and escape before you get in too deep. Compare DeBecker’s advice, such as: “We have to teach young people that ‘No’ is a complete sentence.” and listening to your instincts when you think you’re in danger, and Laviolette’s idea of “prevention” (min. 40.00) teaching young children about how to have flexibility in gender roles & “allow them to be the people who they are”. Look at how she assumes that traditional gender roles/clothing/work are things that people wouldn’t choose if they knew how to be flexible – as if things that are traditionally associated with each gender couldn’t be aggregates of many choices. Also, how does what clothing/job/gender accoutrement people choose make them more or less vulnerable to controlling &/or violent people? Why can’t a compassionate, sweet, lipstick-wearing girly-girl learn to identify signals of a controlling &/or violent nature in potential romantic partners?

      And I still can’t get over the fact that Police Departments & Social Service agencies all over California get advice about domestic violence from this “expert”.

      • Oh, and when Laviolette talks at minute 20.32-21.40 about the “good old days” of feminist collective/domestic violence shelter “anarchy”
        and at
        minute 53.00-54.51 about the problems with “mandatory reporting” & the “system” being too rigid

        Keep in mind who was “educating” police departments, social services & courts during the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 2000s about the problems of “domestic violence”, the needs of victims & how the police, social services & courts could improve in their response to domestic violence situations, perpetrators & victims.

    • I think the defense is filing all these motions for the same reason that the captain of the Titanic ordered the crew to fire flares, open the watertight compartment doors & re-start the engines – they are sinking & there’s nothing effective they can do at this point.

      Like I said once before, I bet they wish they were in Roswell so they could distract the jury by saying ,”Look, up in the sky!” & some of them might, on the off chance there’s a UFO up there….

  16. Example of Laviolette’s view of women who don’t stay after violence. In her hypothetical marriage -with-abuse, after the baby is born, during a fight, the man kicks the coffee table & slaps the woman (no details of what preceded this act) She asks the audience how many would leave, and when one person responds she would leave, Alyce say,s “And there’s no way I can talk you out if it? Really” In light of her 90% of communication is non-verbal testimony, watch her say it for yourself at minute 55.28

    Also, keep her testimony in mind while watching this snippet about rationalizing: minute 47.42

    Go Juan!

  17. How dare Laviolette keep trying to make it sound like the prosecutor is trying to remove context from the testimony, when she ignores things that should be part of the context – like Jodi’s reputation for lying prior to the crime, or interviewing the women whose text/IM communications with Travis she read (90% of communication is nonverbal, unless it’s a text/IM Alyce read & has already decided how it fits into the Victim-ress/He-batterer template)

    I love it, he says “for context read…(item # such&such, didn’t catch the # in my delight)”

  18. Oh, and here’s an observation from my life about another form of intimate relationship in which the man is overtly violent & the woman is not, but in which she’s not necessarily a victim. Someone I knew in my youth liked to go with guys she knew to be violent because she thought she could use them to bully & control other people, or for “protection” like a pit bull. What she didn’t consider when starting up with such guys was that they could turn their aggression & violence on her. (she also had her own ways of getting even – one of her favs was ex-lax brownies)

  19. Here’s a question for those watching the trial via HLN – am I the only one who is sick of this guest, Jason Lamb, who every single time he’s on just keeps repeating how he thinks that Juan Martinez has only one way of approaching witnesses, that he’s too severe & that he spends too much time not narrowly focusing his cross examinations?

    First of all, as for complaining about someone who “only has one speed”, I think Mr Lamb should look up citations for the case of Pot v. Kettle

    As for Juan being “too aggressive” – well, wouldn’t it be convenient for defense attorneys practicing in Maricopa County if Prosecutor Martinez was de-fanged?

    As for going far-afield from the topic at hand – well, the defense had no problem with that when it was Jodi talking about what flavor beverage she had at Starbucks in 1999….jeez

    • My personal humble opinion is that last Thursday before QM started questioning Ms LaToilet, she requested that early break and spoke to Travis’s sister. When TAs sister came back from break, she told the reporter, “QM was taking care of it” meaning, LaToilet approaching her. I think that is why we saw QM straight out of the gate aggressive. I also think that is why LaToilet asked QM if he was angry and if memory serves me correct, at some point he did acknowledge he was angry. I also think this issue was the reason behind the delay in getting started yesterday. I am sure the action by LaToilet on Thursday, had to be addressed. We noticed he had turned is tune down yesterday and started out this morning, still pretty even in tone. I think this afternoon he has gotten frustrated as even I have as a viewer with LaToilets lack of ability to just answer “yes or no”. If he ask her to please reply “yes or no” she will use the word “right” instead of “yes”. She is just out right obnoxious refusing to answer simple yes or no questions and then sitting there racking her brain to see how she can answer his question to somehow support Jodi. I would be flaming furious myself if I were Quan, it is painful to watch. Over and over just refusing to answer questions. LaToilet should not pimp herself out as an expert witness if she is not willing to answer questions from a prosecutor truthfully. The longer she carries this charade on, the more turned off I become by her unethical behavior and shady testimony.

      • Hi mamarj,

        I saw that “Are you angry with me, MR Martinez” exchange, and he didn’t exactly say he was – he asked her if it would make any difference to her conclusions if the prosecutor were angry at her.

        I don’t think he gets angry – I think everything he does in the courtroom is calculated for effect.

        The delay yesterday was for sure about the issue of Laviolette approaching the members of the Alexander family.

        She sure seems to want to keep her distance from facts, or firm answers, doesn’t she?

      • Hi! I have watching on and off today. I think maybe Lav has ruined her career. Who is going to hire someone who is so predjadicial and incompatent as she has proven? I think she took the casr not only for the money but figured the exposer would be good for her career. I do believe it has backfired on her. I wonder if she thinks it worth it to put her career on the line for a person such a Jodi.To not admit when she is wrong proves she has no business testifying for anyone. To totally ignore correct procedure in a courtroom proves she is not a good witness in any court. The ego of her to think she can taunt and try and make Mr.Martinez look bad is something that will hit her in the ass someday. After the case is over if they win or lose she will lose in the end. She will look stupid, unprofessional and will never be able to help any other abused women due to her lack of judgement. And in her case proving to the world that even a professional psychologist can be fooled by someone like Jodi.

        • Hi Morning Laurie,

          I watched til about 2 pm, then had to take a break after some of the re-cross. I couldn’t believe that Willmott started rehashing the “keynote speaker” issue – she was clearly padding her resume, then trying to worm out of it on cross by reverting to her “loosy-goosy” “I’m only evaluating domestic violence (not facts or truth)” posture.

          Here’s the wikipedia Keynote Speaker definition:

          “At political or industrial conventions and expositions and at academic conferences, the keynote address or keynote speech is delivered to set the underlying tone and summarize the core message or most important revelation of the event.”

          The literature from the conference didn’t call her a keynote speaker – that’s a fact. Why is Willmott reminding the jurors again that Laviolette padded the resume she gave to the court? How doe that help the defense case – or is she trying to throw the game to get Jodi an ineffective-asssitance-of-councel appeal?

  20. Holy shizzballs – at 2 pm, questioning about the 9 second clip when Bill Arias was talking about Jodi lying. Willmott is asking Lav if it matters to her assessment of whether Jodi was truthful with Travis as an adult that Jodi was not truthful with her parents as a teen.

    Oh, not, Lav says it doesn’t affect her assessment.

    It only matter if at age 5 Jodi was pretending to be Disney (not Grimms brothers) Snow White. But her attempts to deceive people in her family far closer in time to her adult intimate relationships is irrelevant.

    Now Willmott is talking about how Lav takes things besides Jodi’s words, she takes in other things, and she’s talking so fast & sounds so angry —-wowowwwww!

    I think Laviolette’s expert” testimony should be stricken.

  21. Lav just said to Martinez: “If you were in my group I would ask you to take a time out”

    Wowwwiee – talk about somebody being deaf to context!

    Also, would not a strong person be able to handle someone speaking to them in a loud voice, asking hard questions & wanting the question to be answered without all this slippery, vague attempting to wiggle out of being direct.

    If I were the prosecutor, I would ask her what she thinks the scope of her practice is, what she considers to be the “information” she needs to form her opinion. Because at some instances, she wants more context, in other instances she thinks it’s ok to dismiss or be ignorant of ofther available information

    Can you believe that Lav says she can’t tell from a recorded sex tape whether the woman is having an orgasm????

      • LOL.

        You would think someone who has done couples counseling and dealing with women who she identifies as being in abusive relationships and evaluates situations involving intimate relationships for court proceedings such as the one she is testifying in right now – meaning intimate relationships which means including s-e-x – would not be “too old fashioned” (her words) to discuss any form of sex. It might be very important, if it is an issue between the members of the couple she is dealing with/testifying about.

        That would be like a DNA expert saying , “I don’t ask about blood evidence because I’m too squeamish.”

        How can an “expert” cut off areas of inquiry that can be so central to what is supposedly her area of expertise?!

  22. Jane Valez Mitchell said on her show that, according to someone she spoke to, domestic violence experts are not detectives, they don’t look to find out whether or not things are true, but take what they’re given as true & determine whether or not domestic violence occurred. OMG – considering that their conclusions about whether or not domestic violence occurred or not have such serious affects on real people’s lives – custody of children, restraining orders or criminal records that can be discovered by employers/potential employers – not to mention how it would *feel* to be labelled an “abuser”! And to think it’s ok to do that with incomplete evidence, that discovering more evidence is not important, when people’s lives & families’ are going to have substantial repercussions!

    Just look at Laviolette’s testimony – she is so unwilling to accept the importance of facts, to admit that things she has not been told of might be pertinent – and the way she keeps saying, “I was just looking at it in terms of domestic violence” – as if “domestic violence” is a bubble apart from fact & truth – no wonder it’s such an epic clash between her & a prosecutor. The only surprise is that she seems surprised that someone whose job is trying to discover all the facts, because it affects people’s lives (who does/doesn’t go to prison or execution), would be frustrated by her slippery relationship to facts.

    • So true. I see laViolette to be ever bit as dangerous to children of her “clients” as Dr SoPhony from RHOBH.

      • Just want to make sure, when you’re talking about Dr So-phony, is that Dr Drew (Not that I disagree. The first time I heard him was years ago on the radio & the caller was a girl who complained that after a stint in a residential MH facility she lost her sex drive – and he talked all this bs about difficulties with her father might be making her disinterested – and he never asked the girl is she was on any meds, many of which have been long known & documented to affect sex drives).

        • No I was talking about Dr Sophy who conducted the “marriage counseling” for Swine and Russel on RHOBH and helped her further her “I was abused” agenda and never once explained to her how damaging writing a book like that would be to her daughter. Dr Drew who is a friend of SoPhony ALSO got on board of the abusapolusa SWINE went on to promote her book. Dr Sophy is also head of child protective services of LA. A really creep and totally doesn’t see the ethical dilemma of filming couple counseling for a stupid reality tv show and then AIRING the footage after the man was driven to suicide…or was killed. And taking part in demonizing the deceased. Just a fame whore with a degree.

          • WOW – another example of how these “experts” who think they don’t need to worry about facts and the real-world effects of their spewings can be so destructive!

        • Trish Dr. Sophy (the one that Russel and SWINE saw) We also call him Dr. no socks because he doesn’t wear socks and it drives MP crazy.

  23. I heard a guest on HLN this morning (didn’t catch her name) who thought Lav was “doing pretty well holding her own”…

    as long as truth, accuracy & respect for the dignity of the court & the prosecutor don’t enter into the equation….

    Or one could see it as she’s so stubborn & short-sighted she doesn’t even notice when she’s begrudging Juan points that don’t hurt her claims or Jodi’s case…

  24. 10:30 a.m. wed – Lav concedes that Travis was afraid of Jodi because of her stalking

    Of course it doesn’t last, now that she’s trying to say that Martinez is not using the correct definition of stalking” on her continuum of aggression & violence (because, of course, stalking is only something that happens to women, it’s not something women can do)

  25. I love it that Juan is using Laviolette’s own “Continuum of Aggression & Abuse” to define Jodi’s behavior as stalking.

    She keeps claiming that, after Jodi & Travis broke up, Jodi moving from CA to Mesa, sneaking into Travis’ backyard & watching him necking with another girl isn’t stalking.

    I guess she forgot to write on her chart that it’s only stalking if the person doing it has external reproductive organs.

    • Or it’s not stalking if Jodi did it… She is so innocent. Jodi is disgusting and lying for a disgusting murderer like her that’s disgusting as we’ll for me.

      • I don’t think that Laviolette thinks Jodi is innocent because she’s been hired by Jodi – I think Laviolette believes Jodi didn’t stalk simply because Jodi doesn’t have a penis.

        Now Laviolette is defending “battered women syndrome” because there’s been numerous studies & numerous books. But….

        1. Laviolette didn’t do any of the studies, & did not reference a single study in all the days she was on the stand.

        2. Just because people write books about a claim doesn’t make it true – people wrote tons of books about phrenology and almost nobody thinks that phrenology is science today.

    • It totally was stalking, as Juan was alluding to, Jodi watched kissing and then a bra comin off… If it was not stalking, Jodi woulda left the instant she saw another woman, not watch. Jodi also said the garage door code she had did not work..uh, yo, that is because he changed the code to keep her out. If he wanted Jodi there, he woulda known she was comin and opened the front door.

  26. Now Willmott is asking about Laviolette’s CV (resume). I think what matters is not the number of pages her CV has – but whether it has perforations.

    Willmott rehashing the question of whether Lav was a keynote speaker is so ridiculous – Team Jodi clearly lost that point – why remind the jurors that your “expert” fudged the resume that she gave to a court – what could Willmott possibly hope to accomplish?

    • Idk Trish, from what I could tell, I think they are trying to say Laviolette didn’t mean to lie, that she was not trying to imply that she was the key note. They seemed to try to sweep that whole bit right under the rug with an eye roll. I want to know why is the lady attny doing all of the work with this expert, it seems like it’s Jodi, Wilmott, and Laviolette, the three amigas. Nurmi just sits there like a fat slug.

  27. I notice that Laviolette so often uses as an example of – if not an abusive behavior per se, at least as an example of proto-abusive behavior – “the silent treatment. Although I’ve seen such a behavior in sitcoms, I’ve never experienced or witnessed “the silent treatment” in my life. I’m starting to wonder whether I’m an outlier.

    Questions for all you intelligent & perceptive women

    1. Have you ever experienced/witnesses “the silent treatment”?

    2. What do you think the chances are that every time Laviolette refers to “the silent treatment” in either her talks or in testimony, she’s referring to a single incident she was told about?

Comments are closed.