trial day 41: the defense continues its case in chief #122

[PPKik]

Total disagreement. She wouldn't even answer, "When you interview someone, are you talking? Yes or no?"

She's acting like everything is a trick question, she's way too defensive. Can't stand her. Samuels wasn't even this bad. Just answer the question as he asked, and if you want to add something, you'll get a chance on redirect. She's done this before. I swear, both her and Samuels acted like they've never been cross-examined. She's a fraud and she sucks the big one.

:twocents:

Thank you! I think she is a fraud, too (and a conscious and cunning liar). I do not believe she was just "hoodwinked" or fooled by JA.

What is scary is ALV is even more dangerous than Doc $. How much influence does she have lecturing, counseling, "educating" and publishing compared to Doc $? I feel sick listening to her, even on cross.

[video=youtube;MK7IeqBIKFo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK7IeqBIKFo[/video]

 

[Beaglemania]

What ALV is describing is a pattern of behavior that has very deep roots going back to childhood and that one would take from relationship to relationship. The more intimate the relationship, the more that pattern would reveal itself.

Do you dishonor and disrespect your wife, call her horrible names, rage at her, put her down, occasionally kick her [ok we have no proof of physical, but it fits the pattern of escalation]. As ALV said, the abuse in this relationship was escalating at an alarming rate, and Jodi was the one pulling away, not TA.

IMO

Totally specious analogy. Travis A. did none of those things to psycho-Jodi. ALV based her erroneous conclusions on what? Time's up....here's the answer.... Jodi's TWISTED FANTASY.

 

[neesaki]

I finally reached a point that I am watching Juan's cross of this 'expert' DV witness. I'm only into the first 5 minutes or so, but Juan is already nailing her on her credentials, or lack thereof. She only has a masters degree, no PhD. I can't believe it, she's not even qualified to administer or interpret testing. Which, IMO, makes her a non-expert witness. Whatever the case, she seems to be having a difficult time conceding the facts of the limitations of her 'expertise'. Which obviously includes less training than a PhD requires, approximately two more years, versus a masters. Yet she then responds to Juan claiming she actually has more training than a PhD. :what: I would like to hear what someone has to say, who has endured the grueling requirements involved with obtaining their PhD.

So I no longer wonder why or how the DT got this woman to do what she's doing. She is cheap, and when I say that I don't mean in cost, but rather that she has no qualms in selling herself. For money, pride, notoriety. I seriously doubt this woman could cut the mustard in any PhD program, which is why she never obtained it. There's no sin or shame in that. But that she's selling her soul and putting on this sham of a testimony, that's where the sin and the shame come in, to herself and to her profession, imo.

 

[ClosArgs]

Hey now...leave Elton out of this!

Sorry sleuth, would Peter Frampton have been a better choice?:rocker:

 

[gcharlie]

If that's true, then JM needs to put those things before her and ask her opinion on them. He can certainly bring that out in cross.

Also, notice she made no comment on the murder of TA.

I thought she might have something to say about it, but she did not say anything at all about it.

IMO

The boundaries of her testimony were very strict.

The way that her testimony was allowed has me baffled, but it is what the lawyers agreed to beforehand.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I pray for justice for TA, but if the tactics of the DT cause a misstep in this process, I have a feeling we will see justice arrive later for JA. TA was a victim but I have a strong feeling he won't be or isn't the only victim. This chick is crackers, and in a terrifying way. I'd be scared even if I was her attorney. She's masterful at subterfuge and clearly has no conscience. I am sure that if she hasn't hurt others in the past, she certainly would again.
The overkill shows her soul. You can't keep that kind of sickness penned up for long....and she's had years for it to fester...If you look at her eyes and her expressions, and her ongoing need to keep being sneaky, i.e., stealing pencils, etc. you can see it simmering just under the surface. Jodi had a gun, and trust me, Jodi has a plan.... This chick is crackers.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I think she may have hurt her own credentials.

moo

Her "credentials" were very weak for the field she claims to be an expert in. A Master's in what--psych? Is that was it was? That's one of those degrees that need the Ph.D. to actually get into intellectual expertise. This is JMO--I don't mean to offend anyone with this degree--it is wonderful for counseling, etc--my comment is aimed at ALV who is making the assertion as an expert that she knows Travis was an abuser, a pedophile, and an attacker of Jodi who snapped due to the battering and forced her to slaughter him to save her own life.

All without doing anything but speaking to Jodi. The pathological liar who has been exposed fabricating evidence, stories, etc. She believes this story that Jodi told. That's all I need to know!

 

[gngr~snap]

They had a volatile codependent relationship.
They ignored the inevitable stop point.
They held on too long.

It was a nightmare waiting to happen.
They both saw the signs and ignored them.
The role of the bad guy may have flipped and flopped.
In the end...
One person crossed some very personal lines.
Accessing texts, emails, entering a home they did not live in.
Contacting people the other person was showing an interest in.
Driving hundreds of miles to be closer to that person and
affording the themself the abilty to be minutes away rather than hours.
Who looked in whose windows?
Who was asked to leave yet stayed?

This person felt like the other was their property.
This person swapped cars, left property behind and always had
a reason to show up again.
The same person crossed some lines that they could have been reported to LE for.
This same person scared future dates away by acting out and downright threats.
This same person befriended people on myspace to follow their whereabouts.

One person here "allegedly" made comments with words of disapproval.

The other went to the unsuspecting opposition and had a face to face with them
to tell them in person and bully them into relenting.

Whose "threats" were more purposeful and personal?
Who knew things about the other that had not been shared publicly?
Who knew addresses and hunted people down?
Who had people nervous and upset when this person showed up?
So much so the gave false locations?

Who had friends calling them a stalker and banning them from their home?

Who was the real victim of a predator? (it was several people)
Who was the real predator here?

One was all bark.
The other was the exterminator.

make your own assumptions.

I am not confused as to who did what.
moo

 

[pufnstuf]

Totally specious analogy. Travis A. did none of those things to psycho-Jodi. ALV based her erroneous conclusions on what? Time's up....here's the answer.... Jodi's TWISTED FANTASY.

 

[TigerBalm]

ALV: I'm not evaluating whether or not Ms. Defendant is a battered child Mr. Martinez.

Oh but I did evaluate Travis as a battered child tho.

 

[Emmi]

I'm believing she was in an abusive relationship where she was on the receiving end and trying to extricate herself from it.

I'm still not sure what happened that day in the light of this or what can be proven about it. The trial's not over yet. But, JM has to get his act together or he's going to completely lose me. You can't bully the truth.

IMO

I'm glad that you're giving voice to an unpopular opinion. I agree with you that the text messages, emails, etc. show evidence of emotional and verbal abuse toward Jodi. Even if Travis had a good reason to be angry with her, he was very ready and able to be cruel. His words dehumanized her more than they expressed his own feelings of betrayal, pain, and anger. The words he wrote were meant to not only to reject her--which was his right--but to annihilate her completely.

Why is this so hard to accept, even with the proof in black and white? Why do people seem to think that acknowledging the truth of Travis' emotional violence automatically means excusing Jodi's exteme violence? It doesn't and it won't. She killed a man, and it doesn't look at all like she did it in self defense. But, if Jodi is a sick woman who got sicker because of this relationship, this is something that has to be heard. The truth still matters. Hatred for the liar, the killer, however natural that may be, can't negate the evidence. And, yes, even the fact that she did the worst thing possible can't negate the evidence. It is a deliberate act of intellectual dishonesty to allow hatred to blot out facts.

Take Jodi out of the equation, and what we're left with here is a lot of people saying that the only "real" abuse there is is the kind that leaves physical marks; the rest, though equally damaging, is being minimized or denied. People say that Jodi herself is insulting victims of intimate partner violence, but I see the insult happening right here, on these boards.

 

[Lulu67]

Totally O/T:

I listen to the trial on my way home from work via my iPhone (live stream). I listened as I drove to the store, as I went through BJ's, and as I was driving home. Then just as I was turning to get on the highway, listening to Wilma yammer on and on (and on and on and on....), my engine totally crapped out and my car just sat there.:waiting: Luckily it was far enough forward in the turn so the cars behind me could go around (turning left no less), but not so far out that I blocked the whole intersection. THANK GOD for a couple of guys who eventually came and pushed my car off the road. When I FINALLY got situated and off the phone with roadside assistance, I immediately plugged back in to the trial and heard.......Juan starting the cross. Perfect timing. :great:

Lets hope it's nothing major lease:.....but I'm afraid it's the transmission.

Now I have to hit the hay.....I'm pooped!! fftobed:

 

[Beaglemania]

He also called himself a sociopath. Did you hear that?

If you really think someone is a sociopath, you would do well to not tell them, but just fold up your tent and silently sneak away. What is the point of calling someone all the names he called her?

IMO

BBM: You entirely misinterpreted the Text. He called her an evil sociopath 3-holed wonder, *advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored* etc...right on target!

 

[anagrammy]

I hope Juan shows a crime scene photo of Travis in the shower and asks ALV to explain how she can possibly think that Travis was the "perpetrator" and Jodi Ann was the "victim" in this case.

Her statement made my stomach turn.

My spidey sense tells me that LaViolette has not seen the gruesome photos that we have.

Based on my experience with the self-involvement of expert witnesses, they are totally focused on their expertise, their research, their billing and their schedule of appearances and deadlines. I managed all of those elements during my career in the legal support field.

You can be sure she was not the first choice for an expert, she was probably the only one who knew nothing about the case. You heard her say she didn't bother with email and other fancy nonsense, just good old fashioned paper.

Unless she has a subscription to the Arizona newspaper (why would she?) she hasn't had the news blitz that we've all had for months about this case. She's been in Europe or in Asia giving lectures. She has a schedule. She has a book tour.

SHE IS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THIS CASE. I would bet money on it. I've expressed my disdain for her ethics in agreeing to misrepresent a victim as a perpetrator, but she is going to pay for it by losing her career.

And that's enough. Just get her off the podiums and put someone up there who can advise victims on how to handle social media stalking.

 

[Hatfield]

I meant what lies JM can prove in court to the jury. Right now, they are the ones who matter most in deciding this case.

In the court of public opinion, we know she is guilty, but we cannot convict her or sentence her.

IMO
Juan has already established some of the lies back when Jodi was on the stand.

He proved she lied about the Gas cans by showing the receipts which showed she did have 3 gas cans and she only claimed 2 of them.

He also proved she lied about Travis owning the gun because he made it clear that it was highly unlikely she would run to the closet while someone was chasing her and go for a gun that she did not know if it was loaded, never used before, was in a holster, and somehow she climbed to the top of the closet shelf and got it, all in time to turn around and for it to "go off".

For this new witness ALV, I think he will prove that her analysis is flawed about Travis being physicall abusive to Jodi.

 

[dbranam]

Your right, ALV never called JA a psychopath.....duh she's been paid thousands of dollars not to. She isn't an objective observer but a paid DT witness. She gave her paid opinion of those texts, IMs and emails between people, that doesn't mean her opinion is correct. Mark my words, I'm 100% sure Juan will prove next week that she twisted many things to make it look like something it wasn't.:moo:

All your posts are pro JA and while you're not outright rude you must realize siding with the defendant isn't very victim friendly, which this site is. If you feel that Travis got what he deserved and JA was a victim, why not go to JII where people will share your opinion.:moo:

ALV can't call anyone a psychopath because she doesn't have the credentials to do so as Mr. Martinez pointed out in his cross today. In fact the only thing she can call anyone is an abuser because that is not in the DSM. Which Mr. Martinez also got on the record.

 

[DairyGirl]

I think AVL's big mistake is assuming that everything JA wrote in her journal was gospel. Especially things that were written before she killed Travis. I personally think JA lies so much that she even lied to herself, in those journals. She doesn't write about how things are but how she wants them to be, how she wants to feel. And I also think her planning the murder of Travis started a lot earlier then the end of May and just like her writings written after June 4, 2008 had a purpose to make her look innocent, so do her writings prior to the murder. And, she may have even done some rewriting after her decision to kill Travis, just to back herself up. And, she had from June 4, 2008 to July 15 2008 free as a bird to do whatever she wanted with those journals, too. It may seem like a lot to go through but this woman thought she had it all planned out, down to the color of the car, the extra gas and taking the battery out of her phone.
She just seemed too anxious for the police to get their hands on those journals.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm finding all this talk that ALV was able to know exactly who and what Travis was just based on texts and emails a little unnerving.

Over the weekend, me and my sister were having a conversation over FB and she said something in response to a request I had. I flew off the handle and said some pretty nasty things to her, to which her response was, whoa where is this coming from? And I ignored her.

Now, if I'm ever murdered, a shifty defense team and a biased expert could take that exchange and use it against me. Well, she had anger issues, she would fly off the handle for reason, without provocation, she was verbally abusive to her family, etc. etc.

Now without context that would seem reasonable. But what they would fail to mention or know was that that was a result of building anger and resentment toward her for her behavior and her actions toward me. She wasn't innocent here, is my point. I unleashed a tirade similar to Travis', only more profanity-filled. I was livid.

This is the danger of ALV being allowed to use and interpret Travis' texts and emails to characterize him without any context. Without knowing what was happening outside of these correspondences.

 

[ljwf22]

Just going by what I heard, and not knowing the size of the courtroom, how far away from the jury she would have been if she had been where Travis' family is seated. From what I did see, she seemed to be near an exit?

MOO

The exit is between the two gallery sections, you can see it in photos on this thread. I believe the court clerk (or perhaps a bailiff) seated her and I think she was about as far away from the jury as one could get. :twocents:

 

[Lorelilly]

:nevermind:

Your post says it all without saying anything at all. I think I love you.:blushing: