I read the article and I agree that Ms. LaViolette shouldn't be "destroyed". But even a tsunami of negative social media attention will not destroy her. She is not entitled to positive reviews on Amazon and her first amendment rights do not extend to the right to be paid to voice her opinions in a professional setting.
She has chosen to put herself out there professionally and personally. She chooses not only to advocate for a vicious self-confessed killer but to stretch her advocacy to making an implausible case that the killer's victim was a pedophile on the flimsiest of evidence. When confronted with a relentlessly aggressive prosecutor she exacerbates a bad situation by refusing to answer questions directly, disregarding the Court's admonitions, escalating the conflict by getting personal with Martinez, and finally misrepresenting (some would say lying about) her professional experience.
She contributes to blurring the line between her personal and professional personae by refusing to commit to an objective standard by which to judge her conclusions. She bristles when Martinez characterizes her as a human lie-detector, but her evasiveness about particulars, her numbing mantra of "context" and her holistic approach to decision-making leave her open to this kind of reductive labeling. She gives anecdotal answers to hard questions. Her thinking is too often soft and fuzzy. She insists that she lives in a perpetual gray zone, but her final opinion on Travis Alexander as an abuser is unshakably black-and-white.
She offers all this as the cornerstone in defense of an essentially indefensible client. She may very well believe in her cause, but she professes her faith in the face of Travis Alexander's grieving family and a grim and mounting cost to the state of Arizona. She provokes the anger of real victims of domestic abuse who feel insulted by her presentation. And then she complains about the outrage that her professional opinions and her personal conduct have drawn.
I disagree with the article that "nearly anyone would fall apart at such collective aggression aimed at them". Many people would have gone into the trial prepared for what might be coming. They would delete their Twitter and Facebook accounts. They would go dine with good friends in places far away from the courtroom. An escape from on-line bullying is one tiny power button away; a single mouse-click can silence all those clamorous voices.
Of course, Ms. LaViolette should not be menaced or attacked physically. But an on-line expression of genuine rage may in fact be cathartic and healthful, and, in the end, be a valuable contribution to the context on which LaViolette draws to form and express her opinions.
My web-moniker notwithstanding, I'm far too lazy to pick up any pitchfork, virtual or otherwise, and, misguided as she is, I can see that Ms. LaViolette's hands are empty. But if she is scared by the on-line mob rushing at her with their virtual pitchforks, she should glance back over her shoulder. Squinting hard into the shades of gray that surround her, she might finally make out the flesh-and-blood devil that looms right behind her. And Jodi's holding the biggest pitchfork of all.
