Testifying to the truth and being objective is one thing. Lying, being biased, and completely assassinating a dead man's character by telling lies about him being an abuser is illegal.
There is a reason NUMEROUS other experts turned down this case. If she had ethics she wouldn't have been bought.
We live in an age of social media...this is a highly publicized case. People are entitled to their opinions. We live in a country where the 1st amendment allows us to voice our opinions.
Her decision to take on a high profile case makes her a target. She's a big girl and with 35 years of experience...smart enough to know what comes with that. If Jodi were a sympathetic defendant and there was ample evidence to show she was indeed a "battered woman", this woman's career might have benefited. She has to take the bad with the good.
I applaud people for calling her out. It's their right, and as long as they are not doing anything illegal, who cares?
It's not a right to harass people we don't like, by calling them ugly names, pretend we have read a book they published and then give it a bad review, demand that event planners remove them as speakers at events we do not plan on attending, and threaten them.
Apparently, that's what's been happening to Laviolette.
Being an expert in a high profile case does not give others a license to act like jerks. Should she have predicted intense interest in this case? Yes. But how about intense disgust at her expert opinion? Well, I think she was too biased to realize how her opinion would be received. She seems downright shocked by it. In any event, she is certainly open for criticism and she has made herself so. Her opinions are controversial and downright repellant to many, like me. And people do have a right to voice their opinion.
But when they childishly vent their rage on her via anonymous name-calling, vitriol, threats and the like, they cross the line.
Yes, it was her own continuum ---that's what makes it so hard to believe that she wouldn't acknowledge what was right there on display.
Ugh. That made me want to pull my hair out. She knew exactly what she was doing. She acted like a petulant child with her response to that, IMO. Stubborn, defensive and lacking any credibility.
I believe that there are hundreds of people right here on this very website that could sit in that witness stand and act as a better expert witness than what I've been watching here.
For this 'expert' to sit there and use these generalizations to form her own opinion and BIAS towards this case amazes me and sickens me as I watch.
She claims that because JA had two previous long term relationships, and maintained friendships with those men, that she then saw no evidence that JA could have been violent in this relationship.
She is WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mental health is not a static state. People can accumulate experiences that change the way they react in certain situations.
This is well studied in the realm of PTSD.
There are many documented cases of serial killers having steady girlfriends and/or wives and going out and killing women.
A lifelong friend of mine met a 'Christian' man on a dating site, he became obsessed with her. She moved to another state and he got in his truck one night and drove all through the night to arrive at her home and shoot her to death and them kill himself.
I spoke with his ex-fiance on the phone and she said he had NEVER done anything like this in his life, that he was a kind and generous person.
Generalizations should be left to teaching a basic class on DV 101 and NOT for expert court testimony.
Thank you! Something else that struck me about her testimony was when she said she found jodi believable because jodi did not see herself as a victim at first. Yeah, lady, of course she didn't - until you and Samuels and her attorneys coached her to! Once she began to realize the narrative she needed to adopt in order to possibly escape justice, she quickly realized what a true "victim' she was, right?
And let me say that the way the defense team coaches jodi is probably not totally straight forward. I had the same opinion about casey anthony. They spend hours and hours asking questions that amount to suggestions and over time, the defendant realizes how they are supposed to respond.
I think in Laviolette's case, much of her "suggesting" and coaching was subconscious. As repellant as i found her behavior in court and her "expert" opinion, I don't think she is as shady as that. Instead, i think she met jodi with a mindset easily amenable to seeing jodi as a victim and since she was paid to do just that, found herself asking leading questions that clued jodi in to what she was supposed to say to Laviolette.
It's very transparent and sad to me.
I have a question for the good folks here. Why do you think she went so psycho on this one man? She definitely exhibited stalker-like behavior with previous boyfriends, and crossed boundaries, but what drove her to slaughter Travis Alexander to the extent that she did? What was different about this relationship compared to her previous BF's? I can't quite wrap my mind around that question. Psychopath? Sociopath? Maybe so, but why did it manifest itself when it did?
Princess I wonder the same. 2 of my posts below are my lame attempt at trying to find a WHY, but we really will never know.
Travis' only mistake, except meeting her, was that he didn't tell her NO and stick to it. God forbid if he was so kind as to feed her, help her PPL wise, give her a place to sleep when she needed one and in his own way, love her. Travis was paid back with rage, bullets and stabs. ...No good deed goes unpunished. I hate her so much.
Travis was HER perfect storm. None of us is ever going to know exactly why JA was so obsessed but for starters... HE was successful, smart, handsome, religious and everybody liked him. SHE was not successful, thought she was smart, was pretty on the outside but so ugly on the inside and used religion for gain, as in gain Travis. God, Travis never saw her coming and when he actually did see the real her it was too damn late. She is Pure Evil.
Travis was white, handsome, well-liked, on the track to riches, had his own home and was without the baggage of children or an ex spouse. jodi was becoming more and more desperate to snag a man like him as she approached 30 so she could trap him with a family. This was her best shot at the kind of life she wanted and at having a man she felt many women would envy her having. It was too much when this one found her to be too slutty for marriage.
I think Travis let jodi back in because she is a master manipulator and can convince people that she means no harm. Unless you have known a sociopath, it is incredibly hard to realize how good they are at what they do. Think of all the major cult leaders like David Koresh and Jim Jones. They were able to convince people to follow them to horrible environments and to stay even when they made those environments unbearable by overwork, lack of sleep, lack of food, denial of family or sex and with beatings. They were sociopaths very good at what they did.
I think it's pretty simple. Travis had fears. jodi managed to sneak her way in and get him vulnerable by apologizing over and over again, insisting there had just been a series of mistakes, and repeating that she just needed one last favor from him, or to talk to him one last time, or that she had to pay him something she owed or she had to pick up one last item she forgot.
Once in, she used her sexual abilities to appeal to his sexual desires - desires he likely had trouble satisfying in his community - and to his and lack of restraint and thus his desires tragically overcame his fears.