Arias: All the World is a Nail...

If You're a Hammer

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder experts see traumatized people.

Domestic Violence experts see abuse victims.

I haven't harped on the testimony of Dr. Richard Samuels in the Jodi Arias trial yet I've rambled on and on about the testimony of Alyce LaViolette.  My husband asked me to explain why. =D

Let me begin with a few disclaimers.  One, I am a survivor of physical, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse.  Two, I have been stalked twice.  And three, I suffer from PTSD as a result of an incident in 1978 (which I remember in excruciating detail to this day).  You could accuse me of having a "dog in this fight" and you'd be right.

Back on point, I was upset/annoyed/infuriated by the testimony of both Samuels and LaViolette.  Both evidenced some degree of emotional attachment to Jodi Arias, an absolute no-no for evaluators.  Both were manipulated by her lies.  Both are legitimate experts in their respective fields, however their conclusions in this case were wholly discredited under cross-examination.  Both did a great disservice to real victims by taking on Jodi Arias as a client, to their own detriment and mine.  There is, however, one distinction which must be taken into account.

Dr. Samuels diagnosed Jodi with PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia.  His conclusions were based on some of the same evidence used by LaViolette.  The difference is that Samuels also used (a) two psychological tests and (b) accepted criteria published in the DSM-IV manual.  If Samuels knew or even suspected Arias had lied on these tests, I can only assume he had no ethical choice except to run with the results.  He was snared, if you will.  He knew Jodi lied to him (about the ninja story as a basis trauma on the PSD) but he excused the lie by adopting a "trauma is trauma" attitude.  Bottom line, I still don't see how the PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia diagnoses benefit Arias in any significant way beyond explaining why she told so many lies and why she claims not to remember stabbing Travis Alexander or where she disposed of crime scene evidence.  If his testimony was also meant to illicit sympathy for Arias, it failed in that regard.

Ms. LaViolette, on the other hand, was unable to do any psychological testing.  If she knew or suspected Jodi had lied to her, she could have backed out... but she did not.  This suggests she is sincerely certain of her subjective assessment of the Arias-Alexander relationship.  That said, she made a number of key mistakes to arrive at her conclusions.  The first and most grievous mistake was in failing to recognize that Jodi displays symptoms of psychopathy.  Psychopaths [often referred to as sociopaths] are, by definition, perpetrators, not victims.  Secondly, LaViolette should have insisted on being able to conduct her own interviews with as many persons as possible.  If the defense team was disallowing access needed to properly complete her assessment, she should have declined the case.  Finally, LaViolette didn't fully appreciate the difference between criminal proceedings and civil or family law proceedings.  Nor did she understand she wouldn't be allowed to tap dance around questions she didn't want to answer.  She brought new meaning to the term "hostile witness".

As a footnote, it appears LaViolette is in some trouble with the court.  The matter is being handled in sealed proceedings so we, the public, are unaware of the nature of the trouble.  I hope this eventually comes to light if it can, in any way, serve as a teachable moment to other expert witnesses.