Arias: Sentencing Verdict Postscript

From what we've learned listening to the jurors who've come forward to give interviews, the four holdouts voting for a life sentence for Jodi Arias all found one single mitigating circumstance:

Travis verbally and emotionally abused Jodi.

WTF?????

That's not a mitigating circumstance, that's blaming the victim for his own death... just what the Defense wanted the jury to do in the Guilt Phase.  Now they fall for it?  Cripes!  At best, it's a clear misunderstanding of the jury instructions.  At worst, it's a mitigating excuse invented by jurors who seemingly didn't have the stomach to impose the death penalty Arias deserves.  How could anyone not recognize that the only verbal and emotional abuse Travis directed at Jodi was in direct response to all the evil shit she first inflicted on him?

I think it's worth noting here that Arias has never accepted responsibility for the murder, never shown any remorse (except for getting caught), never even begged for the mercy of the court.  Not even Arias, in her list of eight mitigating circumstances, specifically listed verbal and emotional abuse because it's utter nonsense no juror would have been expected to fall for.

Frankly, I don't have a beef with people who don't believe in the death penalty.  It's a deeply personal opinion and I can respect that.  I do, however, have a beef with anyone who agrees to sit in judgment on a death penalty case while knowing they could never impose a death sentence, no matter what the circumstances.  If they were foolishly betting this case would never come to that, they lost the farm.  But I suppose all that matters to them is that they will be able to sleep well with their verdict.

Speaking of questionable verdicts...  I'll always wonder if those same four were among the five jurors who couldn't "figure out" that felony murder also applied in this case.  The Defense fought hard to have felony murder removed from the charges because it was believed to be a slam-dunk conviction.  Even Jodi Arias herself expressed surprise she wasn't convicted on felony murder.  Oops.

RAGE ALERT:  By dehumanizing Travis Alexander (a man she never met), it appears Alyce LaViolette is solely responsible for saving the life of Jodi Arias... for now.  That, more than anything else about this hung jury phase, pisses the hell out of me.  And I'll stay pissed for a very long time unless and until the second jury reaches the proper verdict.

Arias: Defense Files Again for Mistrial

12:02pm Central: Breaking news this morning on HLN's Raising America.  OMG this circus is never going to end.  Now we know why court is starting late for the four millionth time.  Commentating defense attorney Jason Lamm speaking on HLN gives us a new phrase to describe the Arias defense strategy of filing yet another mistrial motion today...

Fecal Adhesion

12:13pm Central:  [Great Seal of the State of Arizona]... HLN reports an ex-parte meeting with the defense.

12:20pm Central:  [Great Seal of the State of Arizona]... Mike Galanos on HLN does not list Patti Womack on today's lineup though he does not specifically say she will not testify.  He mentions only Darryl Brewer and Jodi Arias.

12:29pm Central:  [Live feed begins]

---

The following represents my notes for todays proceedings and not a true transcript.

---

Evil Stare

JUDGE STEPHENS:  Motion from Nurmi to hear mistrial motion in open court will be heard. [Jury is not present]

NURMI:  Court had a duty to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial and failed to do so.  All previous requests for mistrial were denied.  Failure to sequester was denied.  Claims of witness intimidation restated (Womack and LaViolette, both still under seal).  Claims Ms. Womack now cannot come forward and testify on behalf of Arias.  The intimidation is evidence the picture is not complete for this jury.  The state offers no support for their opposition to the mistrial.  Claims mistrial is the only lawful remedy.

MARTINEZ:  Issue before the court today regards only Ms. Womack.  The issue is why she's not here to testify.  I conducted an interview with Ms. Womack and she failed to answer questions regarding drug use of herself and the Defendant.  She left the room with Jennifer Willmott and Kirk Nurmi, not her attorneys.  When she returned, Womack's Fifth Amendment right was asserted and she stated it was her belief she should assert them.  She faces prosecution for not reporting income from "some photographs" and for "use of illicit drugs".  She has some sort of substance abuse problem.  She came to court on Thursday May 16 and at that time the court appointed an attorney, Kenneth Countryman, who wanted to wait until Monday to make a determination.  It's the State's belief, based on her silence, she would have continued to assert her rights and been excluded from testifying.  Makes a copy of the interview available from the May 15 interview as evidence as what happened.  Womack is not here to testify.

NURMI:  The truth doesn't associate with what he's saying.  We never advised Ms. Womack.  When this court allows a prosecutor to attack [a witness]... we don't know whether it's true that Ms. Womack would plead the Fifth... the effect on Ms. Arias would be the same.  Ms. Arias has a right to  present a full and complete case during mitigation.

STEPHENS:  Defense has failed to prove its case.  Sealed proceedings outside the courtroom will not be revealed.  Any witness the Defense wishes to call may be called in sealed proceedings.  The court can only speculate why Ms. Womack is not here today as well as other witnesses who could possibly testify.  Motion Denied.

NURMI:  Ms. Willmott and I again request to withdraw from the case.  We cannot fulfill our duty to the Defendant.

STEPHENS:  Motion to withdraw denied.

NURMI:  We will not be calling witnesses during this phase.

STEPHENS:  I assume your client does wish to allocute.

NURMI:  May we approach?  [sidebar]

[JURY ENTERS THE COURTROOM]

[Live feed defaults to the Great Seal]

12:58pm Central:  [Live feed resumes.  Jury has left the courtroom.]

STEPHENS:  Due to ex-parte meeting with defendant which shall be sealed, court will be adjourned for today and resume tomorrow.

MARTINEZ:  Ms Womack stated she would not be able to testify to Arias having a bad childhood.  [Implies her testimony would not be crucial to the Defense.]

NURMI:  We believe a jury instruction as to why Ms. Womack is not going to testify is appropriate.  Asks for a stay of the proceedings.

STEPHENS:  I will say [Womack] is unavailable.  Stay is denied.

MARTINEZ:  May we approach? [sidebar]

STEPHENS:  Calls for the jury.  We are unable to proceed.  Please return tomorrow morning at 9:30 [Pacific].  You are excused.  [Jury leaves.]  We are at recess.

---

Footnotes:
I think it's being implied Alyce LaViolette would have been called to testify in this phase of the trial however Nurmi's opening statement did not mention her (only Womack and Darryl Brewer).  It's not clear why Darryl Brewer didn't show up today [the Judge commented no witnesses were present today].  Nor is it clear why proceedings couldn't continue with testimony from Jodi Arias.

Jane Velez-Mitchell reports tonight during her program on HLN that she and her producer saw Darryl Brewer waiting at a nearby hotel for a call from the Defense to come on over to testify.  That call never came.  Apparently he was not intimidated at all by Juan Martinez and has nothing to hide. [Update 6:21pm Central]

Arias: Donavan Bering

Donavan Bering continues to come to the Jodi Arias trial -- shown at right in the green shirt beside Sandy Arias during the May 16 proceedings.  My understanding is the two women met in the Estrella jail, became friends and that Donavan is (or at least was) in charge of posting Jodi's tweets on Twitter.  I read today Donavan is a parolee so I'm questioning the wisdom of her continued association with Jodi, now a convicted felon.  That must be some friendship!  But hey.  If you so strongly believe in someone that you'll risk going (back) to jail for them, then I guess you should get a Plus in your column. Speaking of supporters...

Not that I'm keeping close tabs on the Arias support sites, but I have been curious.  Those people are genuinely convinced that Jodi was abused by Travis Alexander because they believe in Jodi herself.  That's really not so different than me being genuinely convinced she was not abused, at least not to any degree that would have made her fear for her life.  Anyway, my first glance into that other world shocked me.  The vitriol I saw there was so over the top... the F bombs were so frequently thrown that they lost all their effectiveness.  But what really frosted my chaps was the sentiment that Travis got what he deserved.  And that his whole "trashy" family should go away and die.  Wow!  Who can reason with "logic" like that?

Let me go on the record right now as NOT having any ill will toward the Arias family.  In fact, I can't say I have any "personal" animosity toward Jodi Arias.  Do I want to Friend her?  Uh, no.  Do I think she deserves the death penalty because I think she committed a senseless, brutal murder?  Yep.  But do I hate Jodi, her family and her friends?  No.  I can't think of a reason why I should -- in the limited personal sense.  I never met Travis or his family or friends.  I have no personal vested interest in the outcome of this trial other than via one simple core sentiment that brought me to this trial in the first place...

I've been abused.  If I thought Jodi had been abused I'd be a lot more sympathetic, although I would still not approve of the murder of the alleged abuser (and certainly not in such a horrific way).  It was Alyce LaViolette's testimony that got my blood boiling.  No need to rehash all that; those posts are all still up.  The relevant point here is that I feel as if this trial, in the broad scope of things, has been detrimental for the cause of abused women (and men).  And LaViolette made a bad scenario worse.  But again, I'm coming from the belief Jodi was not physically abused.

---

18 May Update: I'm not going to cite my sources here because I want to be careful not to get anyone in trouble, but it looks as if Donavan's parole board is onto her association with Jodi.  Curiously, I feel a bit sad about this.  Of course Donavan made her choices.  Nobody forced her to violate her conditions of parole.

Ariel Castro: A Real Abuser

Between 2002 and 2004 the now 52-year-old Ariel Castro of Cleveland, Ohio, kidnapped Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, Michelle Knight and perhaps others as yet unknown.  Since then he has imprisoned, raped, beaten and starved the three women.  Earlier this week Amanda Berry was able to attract the attention of a neighbor and, with his help, was able to escape and direct the rescue of the other two women.  Police are investigating whether more missing girls in the area may be victims of Castro. [Reference Story]

To Alyce LaViolette:

I suggest you put your experience to good use by moving to Cleveland and providing pro-bono counseling services for life to all the victims of Ariel Castro.  If you would do that, I would forgive you for your testimony on behalf of liar and convicted murderer, Jodi Arias.  Maybe others who feel as I do will chime in below.

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.

Arias: Defining Psycopathy

I did some homework...

Jodi Arias exhibits all the key elements required for a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy. This is what a defense witness, Alyce LaViolette, fails (or refuses) to recognize and factor in when presenting her conclusions in this high-profile murder case.  Instead, LaViolette has placed all emphasis on describing the verbally abusive behavior pattern of Travis Alexander, the victim in this case, and refused to acknowledge the long-standing psychopathic behavior of the defendant.

LaViolette is a domestic violence expert with over 30 years of experience working with both abusers and victims.  She is not, however, a psychologist, a psychiatrist or a medical doctor licensed to make any clinical diagnosis.  Furthermore, her area of investigation in this case was limited to selected documents provided by the defense team and a series of interviews with the defendant totaling 44 hours -- ample time for bonding to have occurred between an expert and a manipulative defendant.

For instance, LaViolette concluded Arias must have been physically abused because (a) Arias alleges Alexander broke her finger and (b) she has a "broken" finger as proof.  Technically, Jodi has a crooked finger.  Other than the defendant's word, there is no corroborating evidence being offered that the finger was ever broken, let alone when and how it happened.  Conversely, there is state's evidence to suggest she cut the finger (likely severing a tendon) during the brutal knife attack on Alexander: witnesses testified seeing one or two of her fingers bandaged immediately after the killing; her blood mixed with the victim's blood was found on a palm print at the crime scene.

There is plenty of evidence to show Travis Alexander was a user of women.  Reasonable people could disagree on whether or not his "use" rose to the level of "abuse".  LaViolette spent a lot of time on the stand relating how he verbally abused Jodi Arias, citing examples of some of his rants contained in various phone text messages and instant messages.  What confuses me is that LaViolette did not seem concerned about the underlying causes of the rants or any of the specific accusations he expressed.  Travis calls her a sociopath and says if people only knew how sick Arias is they would spit on her.  How on earth is that not a huge red flag?!  One should also take note of the fact that Travis seemed to have had many good friends and was generally liked (a positive indicator) while Jodi has almost no friends and is generally disliked (a negative indicator).

LaViolette's testimony pivots around her extremely narrow conceptions of what defines Deception, Stalking, Manipulation and Narcissism.  She repeatedly testifies she looks for patterns, not merely individual instances of behavior, apparently using a subjective behavior-over-time analysis to assess whether or not a behavior pattern exists.

• Deception:  LaViolette continually asserted seeing no evidence to suggest Jodi is deceptive.  "She only lied about the killing."  On the other hand, she finds Travis was deceptive solely for asserting he was a virgin.  In order for deception to occur, there must be a pattern, i.e. examples over time.  LaViolette only cited the one lie about his virginity but insists it was a pattern over time because he perpetuated the lie for purposes of retaining his priesthood.  Conversely, according to LaViolette, there is no pattern over time with regard to Arias:  she told a multitude of lies but only about the killing (from June 4, 2008 until the present) and only for the purpose of not getting caught.  Is not this a distinction without a difference?
• Stalking:  When confronted with numerous instances which most reasonable people would define as stalking, LaViolette disagrees.  According to her narrow definition, Travis would have had to have taken steps to demonstrate his fear (e.g. making a police report or obtaining a restraining order) in order for Jodi's outrageous behavior to be classified as stalking.  While that is indeed the legal definition, it is certainly not a real-life definition. The prosecution clearly established a real-life pattern of stalking behavior on the part of Arias.  It's a tragedy that, while Alexander expresses his fear of Jodi to several other people, he clearly had not yet had time to fully assess and process the danger he truly was in.
• Manipulation: "I didn't say Ms. Arias wasn't manipulative.  I just said I have no evidence of that.  There was no pattern of manipulation in the evidence I saw."  Arias testified she routinely used sex to "de-stress" Travis.  Alexander wrote in a text message that he felt like he was nothing more than "a dildo with a heartbeat" to Arias, a strong indication he felt sexually manipulated by her.  A co-worker of Alexander recalled an incident where he invited about 30 out-of-town co-workers to spend the night at his house during a convention.  Arias was not invited, was told not to come, but showed up anyway and spent the night there.  I have conflicted feelings about this incident as to whether it would properly fall under Stalking or Manipulation.  It may be a blend of both: arriving uninvited is stalking; getting Travis to allow her to stay is manipulation.
• Narcissism:  LaViolette makes two memorable, contradictory statements about Arias: (1) that she suffers from low self-esteem and (2) that Arias thinks she may have an IQ up there with Einstein's.  She was unwilling to make a self-esteem judgment about Arias having written and autographed a yet-unpublished Defendant's Manifesto "in case she gets famous".  LaViolette cites Alexander calling Arias a porn star as an example of his verbal abuse escalating to character assassination.  Yet we get the impression from Jodi's testimony that she saw it as a compliment, an affirmation of her sexual prowess.  Wouldn't that remove it from the list of abuse altogether?

I copied and pasted a brief overview of psychopathy (at the end of this post) from an internet reference site; a link to the original source is included in the title.  Court watchers are encouraged to read it over and evaluate whether or not the defendant fits the diagnosis.

Why is this Important?

Jodi Arias is accused of premeditated, first degree murder.  She alleges it was not premeditated but, rather, it was spontaneous self-defense.  If self-defense, she can be convicted of a lesser crime or simply acquitted.  If premeditated, the jury will be asked to hear evidence regarding mitigating and aggravating factors then decide whether or not to impose the death penalty.  If the death penalty is imposed, it should be because no possibilty of rehabilitation is possible.  If the jury believes she is, or is likely to be, a psychopath the death penalty is appropriate as such persons cannot be treated and continue to be a danger so long as they live.

In the words of Judge Judy, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."  Most of Jodi's current "story" doesn't make sense to me.  For example:

• Aside from Jodi's questionable testimony, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that Travis was ever physically abusive toward her.  Furthermore, jurors should ask what would be the more "natural" reaction to someone dropping their new camera:  body slam the person... or yell at the person while grabbing the camera to see if there's any damage to it?
• Jurors should recall the extent of the injuries Arias claims to have sustained on June 4.  All that comes to mind as of this writing is a sore shoulder (probably from stabbing him 29 times).
• Jodi needed an explanation for her crooked finger that does not involve June 4 in order to support her initial "story" of not having been in Mesa on the day of the murder.  The convenient solution to support her current "story" of self-defense is to claim Travis broke it during a previous incident of physical abuse.  A simple x-ray, even one taken this long after the fact, would support her claim yet none has been provided.  The obvious inference is that an x-ray would not support her story that the finger had been broken.  I find it very difficult to believe that Jodi's love-of-self would have allowed a broken finger to go untreated to the ultimate effect of it becoming deformed.  She could have given any excuse for the break to a doctor; she could have (at the very least) told someone that she had a broken finger.  She did not.  Nobody ever saw her finger in a splint.  If she received the injury on June 4, she could not have gone to a doctor and leave evidence behind.  One last point, she told Ryan Burns she cut her fingers on a glass at "Margaritaville" -- a non-existent establishment where she claimed to have been employed -- and she specifically used the word "cut".  I continue to assert the finger does not look broken to me.
• The best self-defense is escape.  If she truly was afraid for her life, she surely would have and certainly could have escaped from a naked, dripping-wet man.  Instead, her first thought for self-defense was to run into a closet, climb shelving and grab a gun she thought wasn't loaded.  This part of the story is further complicated by (a) friends of Alexander saying he did not own a gun, (b) shelving which can't be climbed and (c) no ammunition was ever found in Alexander's home.  If, in fact, a gun was hidden in the closet, Arias most likely put it there herself.
• If Jodi was, in fact, body-slammed (and the intent of Travis was to kill her) she would be dead today.  She would not have been able to immediately get up and run to the closet.
• There is no adequate explanation for where the knife came from.  Arias claims it was used to cut a rope used during a sexcapade earlier in the day.  She thinks she must have taken the rope and thrown it into a "dumpster somewhere".  One difficulty with this story is that people don't generally use knives to cut ropes if scissors are readily available (and in this case they were).  Another is Arias needs to invent a reason for the knife being in the master bedroom area.  The rope is the "excuse" for having the knife.  When a rope wasn't found at the crime scene, Arias postulates she must have disposed of it (although she doesn't really remember).  What evidence did she think was on the rope that prompted her to remove it?

There are many more examples to show that not one of Jodi's stories, to date, can pass the smell test.  If the jury decides this killing was in self-defense, they will do so based solely on her words and not on the myriad circumstantial and physical evidence pointing to premeditation.  I have great empathy for the defense attorneys.  They simply have nothing to work with.

---

How to Spot a Psychopath

What kind of person could be a psychopath?  Professional have highlighted a few warning signs. They include:

• Playing on our sympathy: Psychopaths will use us, will hurt and rip us off – then heartlessly play to our sympathetic feelings - and we blindly believe them and tend to let them off. But if this happens often, it shows a lack of conscience so don’t be fooled by their cheap and empty words.
• Being manipulative: Psychopaths, in general, love to play with your emotions. They want you to jump, squirm, feel anxious or afraid.
• Being a parasite: The psychopath will use their charm and persuasion to get you to pay, or to meet their various needs. There’s rarely any benefit or payoff for you. You’re just being exploited – you’re a pawn in their hands. 
• Being deceitful: They’re con men who’ll trick you and lie constantly. Their life is a deception; you can’t trust a word. But if you point to a snag in their tangled web of lies they’ll vehemently deny it, and jump to their defence. 
• Highly charming: Psychopaths are usually charismatic characters. That is, they’re often mesmerizing, can pull in a crowd, and make a person feel like they’re a famous movie star. But it won’t last forever … they drop you and move on.
• Conceited: Psychopaths are caught up with themselves and their importance. They’re boastful, proud, haughty, heartless, arrogant – and like to undermine, criticise and put you down.
• Are never to blame: The psychopath believes that they are never to blame - and they won’t accept any culpability.
• Being highly reactive: Although psychopaths can quickly cover up their anger, they will overreact to perceived slights and offences … or to insufficient deference, recognition and respect.
• Risk-takers: These types of individuals are extreme risk takers who draw in others to their games, schemes and plans. They’re hungry for power and they seek control – regardless of the risks or the danger this entails.

Note: Research indicates that psychopaths cannot be treated.  So put up your guard and keep a healthy distance – and don’t ever form a relationship with them.

Travis Alexander: Loved to Death

There's no doubt in my mind that Jodi Arias loved Travis Alexander.  Bobby Juarez, Matt McCartney and Darryl Brewer should be down on their knees thanking God every night for the rest of their lives that Jodi didn't love them as much as she loved Travis.

Random thoughts on today's trial coverage...

If I hear Alyce LaViolette support her opinions of Jodi and Travis based on "the evidence I've seen" one more time I think I'll have a meltdown.  She hasn't got a clue just how much evidence she hasn't seen!  Now, if I put on my defense attorney hat, I have to admit hiring LaViolette was a strategic necessity.  She isn't a psychologist or psychiatrist.  Force her to focus solely on domestic abuse and she may not notice the depth of Jodi's psychopathy.  Solely from that standpoint, the strategy worked fairly well.  What has backfired is that her failure to recognize and admit that Jodi is an abuser has gone over like the proverbial lead balloon.

Jennifer Willmott needs to sit down.  The more she scrambles to rehabilitate LaViolette's testimony, the more ridiculous they both look.  The jury is pissed off and frustrated that LaViolette was manipulated by Jodi and her defense team -- and their 159 questions all show that.  The more LaViolette protests that Jodi was not an abuser/manipulator/stalker, the more likely it is Jodi will get the death penalty.

One of the jury questions had been regarding how many times LaViolette had testified in a criminal trial on behalf of a man.  Her answer was, "One or two times."  Juan Martinez just got her to admit that was perjury.  She has never testified in a criminal trial on behalf of a man.  BUSTED!

Martinez, still in followup, can't get her to admit some of her own testimony earlier in the day regarding Jodi being (or rather not being) a manipulator.  She's still insisting she "saw no evidence" to support that.  [cough]  Actually, she saw two pieces of evidence which she opted to disregard.  BUSTED!

"Hypothetically speaking, would your opinion of domestic abuse change if you learned the defendant has lied in this case?" asks Martinez.  OBJECTION!  SIDEBAR!  SUSTAINED!  He rewords the question... OBJECTION!  SIDEBAR!  Again the question is reworded.  "It would depend on what Miss Arias lied about.  Once again, I'm looking for... patterns of behavior," said LaViolette.  She goes on to needing more information about what type of lie it might have been (suggesting it probably isn't going to matter to her anyway).  Now he's nailed her, pointing out her own "lie" about having experience testifying for males in criminal court.  "Did you tell the jury that with the same degree of certainty with which you told them the defendant was a victim of abuse?" [crickets]  Flurry of unsustained objections ending in a sidebar.

[Juror #11 is ill and has been excused from the trial according to Judge Sherry Stephens.]

"So people who tell lies are liars, right?" asks Martinez.  It took him awhile to get the answer he was looking for but he did get it.  "Yes," LaViolette replied.  [LMAO]  In context, LaViolette refused to admit that Jodi might be a liar because she didn't see a "pattern" of lies (she "only" lied after and about the murder) while, on the contrary, LaViolette had characterized Travis as a proven liar based solely on his claim of being a virgin.  Apparently, LaViolette doesn't see the inconsistency.

Martinez finishes up by showing the jury that LaViolette will not concede her evaluation was defective because she was not able to interview Travis.  By extension, the implication is that we all know Jodi is a liar; Travis can't give his side of the story; and LaViolette doesn't have the Big Picture.  Well done, Mr. Prosecutor!!

What's this?  Following one last juror question and followup by the State, Judge Stephens dismisses the jury and addresses LaViolette:

The record will show the jury has left the courtroom... Miss LaViolette, we will need you to return on Tuesday to complete your testimony unless I release you from your subpoena prior to that time.  There is another issue that the... I think you are aware of the additional issue... this is a priority... [LaViolette speaks to the Judge, inaudible]... don't tell me about your personal issues.  Here's my concern.  My concern is that we will have a conversation on Monday, on the record, after everyone has had an opportunity to follow up on the issue we've discussed and at that time I will hear anything else.  You will have made preparations and we can talk about it at that time... You are still under subpoena.

Wow!  Sounds like reporters will be scrambling over the weekend to find out what's going on with that.

Arias: Sex and the Priesthood

Arias Trial - Witness Bias

I take back anything nice I ever said to or about Alyce LaViolette.  She is no longer "credible" in my eyes.  I can't wait to see if the Jury questions reflect the outrage I'm feeling right now toward this witness.


GENDER BIAS:  LaViolette thinks Travis is a big fat rat liar because he was not telling the world the truth about his lack of virginity.  Gasp, omg, shoot a priesthood member for not wanting his church and friends to know he's had s e x.  Oh wait, Jodi already shot him.  Of course LaViolette finds Jodi to be "credible" and "truthful".  That's because Jodi "only" lied about murdering Travis.  LaViolette believes anyone who says Jodi is a pathological liar -- or even a sociopath -- is not "credible".  Later, on redirect, LaViolette asserts Jodi is not a good liar, otherwise she'd have done a better job at it.  Smart as Einstein, eh?

GENDER BIAS:  LaViolette believes Jodi was afraid of Travis even though (a) she never told anyone that until after she murdered him, (b) she never reported abuse to anyone and (c) she continued to sleep with Travis.  Conversely, LaViolette believes Travis was NOT afraid of Jodi even though (a) he told people he was extremely afraid of her, (b) he told people she'd been stalking him and (c) he continued to sleep with Jodi.  [facepalm]

REMINDER:  Following more than a week of domestic abuse testimony aimed at destroying Travis's reputation, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the subject is entirely irrelevant in this case, just another red herring presented by the "credible" [not] Jodi Arias.  In my opinion, evidence pointing to a cold-blooded, premeditated murder is simply overwhelming.  If Jodi had killed him in self defense, she'd have absolutely no reason to take a coverup to such an extreme (and, frankly, ludicrous) length.  Catch a replay of Jodi's testimony and watch her smirking as she recounts her ridiculous story.  And remember she said she couldn't say whether or not she'd have ever turned herself in if she hadn't gotten caught.

Jodi Arias Trial

Mark My Words

Travis Alexander, a 30-year-old motivational speaker, was found murdered in his Mesa, AZ, home by concerned friends on June 9, 2008.  His naked, decomposing body had been stuffed into the master bath shower stall.  Autopsy showed that, in addition to 28 stab wounds to Alexander's head, neck, chest, back, hands and legs, there were three potentially fatal wounds:  a 3.5" deep stab wound to the heart, a gunshot wound to the head, and his throat had been slashed from ear to ear.  Obvious, if ineffective, attempts had been made to clean up the crime scene.  The tape of the 911 call reveals immediate suspicion was directed on Alexander's ex-girlfriend and stalker, Jodi Arias.

Alexander's digital camera was discovered in the home's washing machine, apparently destroyed in a wash cycle.  Digital photos which had been deleted were recovered from the camera's intact sim card by forensic experts.  Images of both Alexander and Arias before and after the killing place his time of death at approximately 5:30pm on June 4th.  Other evidence pointing to Arias recovered at the scene included bloody strands of hair and a bloody palm print on a bedroom wall.  Lead Detective Esteban "Steve" Flores remarked he'd never had a case with so much physical evidence.

Arias gave authorities a series of stories about her whereabouts on June 4th and the circumstances of Alexander's death but eventually confessed to the killing, asserting self defense.  She has been charged with first degree (premeditated and felony) murder.  Prosecutor Juan Martinez is seeking the death penalty.  Notable quotes by Arias in media interviews following her arrest on July 15, 2008:

The evidence is very compelling. But none of it proves I committed a murder.

No jury will ever convict me. Mark my words.

What's a Witness to Do?

In general, I have a favorable opinion of the domestic abuse expert currently testifying in the Jodi Arias trial, Ms. Alyce LaViolette, when it comes to her understanding of the various dynamics of domestic abuse. However, in addition to her obvious gender bias in favor of female victims, she is showing a complete lack of understanding of how a witness must behave in a criminal trial.

To date, she has been admonished untold times by Judge Sherry Stephens to "wait for the question," "answer the question," "answer the question, yes or no," "listen carefully to the question," "answer only the question," "do not volunteer information," "if you need to clarify, you can do that on redirect."  Is it any wonder Maricopa County Prosecutor Juan Martinez is getting exceptionally testy with her?  LaViolette's irritating the hell out of me... and tainting her credibility.  I think I'll keep a tally of judicial interventions today...

Witness Admonitions (to LaViolette):  3x
Sidebars (due to LaViolette's refusal to properly answer questions):  6x
Jury Directives (to recall previous testimony to supplement LaViolette's refusals):  4x

Is Jodi a Manipulator?

Not according to the testimony of Ms. LaViolette.  There is SO much evidence to suggest that Jodi is a master manipulator that it's almost impossible to believe LaViolette saw "no evidence" of it.  For example, when Travis would go on a verbal tirade about Jodi's bizarre, infuriating behavior, Jodi "manipulates" him into calming down by refusing to engage.  On other occasions, she "manipulates" Travis with sexual encounters.  She manipulated her attorney, Kirk Nurmi, into not resigning by threatening suicide.  LaViolette witnessed a meek, soft-spoken little Jodi, afraid to stand up to Travis because that's how Jodi presented herself in her infamous journals and during the 44 hours of interviews with LaViolette... during which time Jodi was absolutely "credible".  And that, my friends, is the magic of manipulation.  Lies?  What lies?

Is Jodi a Narcissist?

Not according to the testimony of Ms. LaViolette.  Do I really have to refute this?  Jodi doesn't have low self esteem.  On the contrary, she has what might be described as delusions of grandeur.  I mean, seriously, who writes a manifesto from jail, has copies made and then autographs them for when they get famous?  Not someone with low self esteem.

Is Jodi a Stalker?

The short answer is, "Hell yeah!"

LaViolette was retained by the Arias defense team for a narrowly-defined purpose:  to regurgitate Jodi's claim of being abused by ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in order to bolster her claim of self defense in his killing.

On direct, Ms. LaViolette testified at length to explain the nature of domestic abuse and used her trademark "Continuum of Aggression and Abuse" chart to illustrate various stages and intensities of abuse.  Yet, on cross examination, she repeatedly tries to distance herself from the relevance of the chart in the context of this trial. Today, she refused to even admit the first type of abuse listed under the category of "Terrorism" refers to "Stalking" even though that's clearly the term used.  She insists that the Continuum refers only to Abuse and that abusive stalking requires the victim to exhibit fearful behavior (not just feel fearful).  By that standard, Ms. LaViolette "sees no evidence of stalking" on the part of Jodi Arias.  The fact that Travis told someone he was "extremely afraid" of Jodi due to her stalking is not credible to LaViolette since he continued to "engage" with Jodi after saying that.

Let's look at some stalking behaviors exhibited by Jodi which Ms. LaViolette asserts do not qualify as abusive stalking:

• Continuing to call an ex-boyfriend who hangs up on you
• Leaving a sack of groceries on your ex-boyfriend's doorstep
• Confronting your ex-boyfriends new girlfriends
• Crashing an ex-boyfriend's party and refusing to leave
• Moving a thousand miles to an ex-boyfriend's general neighborhood
• Peeking in an ex-boyfriend's window, watching him make out with another woman
• Crawling through your ex-boyfriend's doggie door when he's not home
• Stealing an engagement ring intended for another woman from your ex-boyfriend's house
• Reading your ex-boyfriend's email
• Searching through your ex-boyfriend's phone and reading text messages
• Sending text messages to "other women" from your ex-boyfriend's phone, pretending to be him
• Slashing your ex-boyfriend's tires (twice)

Okay, so.... none of that is abusive stalking, right?  And, if not abusive stalking, can we at least agree it's stalking?  LaViolette says no.  I'm so confused.  Travis claims to be afraid of Jodi but that can't be true because he continued to engage.  Jodi claims to be afraid of Travis but that must be true because she continued to engage, waited until he was naked and vulnerable and then butchered him?  Pass the aspirin!!

Despite LaViolette's protests, the points Martinez made on cross examination are resounding loud and clear with court watchers everywhere... that Travis and Jodi were both abusers... that Jodi was, by far, the more dangerous of the two... and that LaViolette will never admit that her biases affected her conclusions about the nature of their toxic relationship.

This whole "Jodi isn't a stalker because Travis didn't call the cops on her" testimony by LaViolette is pure sexist crap and pisses me off!!!  If a female doesn't call the cops on a male abuser, it doesn't mean she wasn't abused (because not all women report).  Yet if a male doesn't call the cops on a female stalker, it's proof positive he isn't really being stalked.  Does she have any statistics to prove that men habitually call the cops on female stalkers?  Leaving gender out of it, what if the Stalker was so sneaky that the Victim didn't even know it was happening?  What then?  Would she (LaViolette) continue to assert that no stalking occurred?  Or would she just appropriate some other word for it?  I understand she has a "special" definition for purposes of domestic abuse but I would assert that it's a bullshit definition, utterly devoid of any semblance of rational logic!!! 

Is Jodi Mentally Ill?

On May 26, 2008, just days before his murder on June 4, Travis called Jodi a "sociopath" in a text message.  LaViolette believed that statement was nothing more than a meaningless, angry abusive rant.  Excuse me?  The word sociopath should have set off bells and whistles to any licensed psychotherapist.  LaViolette should have wanted to know why Travis called Jodi that instead of just dismissing it.  At the very least, she could have (and absolutely should have) re-evaluated her unquestioning reliance on Jodi's unsubstantiated claims about virtually everything at that point.  It appears she did neither.  But then that's not her area of expertise.  With blinders on, she focuses on domestic violence and apparently fails to recognize mental illness, even in cases such as this where the illness is severe and apparent to even a non-professional.  I don't know whether or not Jodi is a sociopath in the strict clinical sense (psychopath might be a better diagnosis), but I do firmly believe she is mentally ill and, as we now know, extremely dangerous. In the same text message chain, Travis told Jodi that she was the worst thing that ever happened to him -- a point I'm guessing not even the combative LaViolette would attempt to argue against.

LaViolette testified she found no evidence of Jodi being jealous of Travis's other women.  If that's the case then Jodi is indeed mentally ill.  She says, "I love, love, love Travis" yet doesn't have the mentality to be jealous of his flirtations and dalliances?  Riiiiiiiiiight.  Of course she was jealous and she thought she could literally screw Travis into a state of fidelity (there's the narcissist at work).  When that didn't work, after a year of trying, she killed him.  The Cancun trip was the trigger -- Jodi realized he'd rather go alone than take her with him.  In her mind, not gonna happen.

Open Letter to Alyce LaViolette

Dear Alyce,

I'm impressed by your knowledge, understanding and compassion for victims of domestic abuse.  But I wish to God you hadn't decided to testify on behalf of Jodi Arias.  You've been deceived in the most heinous way (as I'm sure you're slowly coming to realize).

Jodi's friends and acquaintances describe her as follows:

• Psychopath
• Sociopath
• Pathological Liar
• Bi-Polar
• Stalker
• Narcissist
• Selfish 
• User
• Soul-less
• Eerie, Creepy, Pure Evil

And yet you've seen "no evidence" of any of this because it was withheld from you by the Defense team.  You weren't shown the mountain of evidence of premeditation in the murder of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander.  Conversely, the only evidence you were "shown" of Travis's alleged physical abuse was Jodi's word for it... because... THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE.

Okay. Travis was a shameless two-timing flirt and lied about being a virgin.  In spite of that, the evidence shows he was well-loved and respected by virtually everyone who knew him, including Jodi Arias.  But Jodi's love and respect came with a high price... 29 stab wounds, a bullet to the head and a slashed throat.  And, as if that wasn't bad enough, she wadded up his brutalized body into his shower stall and drove off into the sunset for a romantic rendezvous with her next potential victim.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Jodi is a serial rapist whose crimes were made way too easy by men who enjoyed the sex too much to turn her away.  I just hope this jury puts an end to her spree.  But I don't know.  After the acquittal of Casey Anthony -- who also alleged physical, sexual and emotional abuse -- I've lost a lot of faith in our judicial system.  We shall see if Jodi's jury can see through her infamous (and bogus) fog.

Best wishes, Alyce.  I hope your involvement in this case doesn't have any lasting effect on your career as I believe you have much to offer to persons who are genuinely victims of abuse.

Signed,
A Survivor

P.S.  When Juan Martinez asks you a simple, straightforward yes/no question such as, "Is Travis Alexander a man?" could you please just answer it?  Your insistence on sparring with him on Every Single Point makes you appear rather foolish.