She only claims that men can be abused as an "aside." Someone in the jury picked up on it when they asked about her always referring to the perpetrator as "he" and if a perpetrator could be a "she." I think she says men can be abused to be "PC," but deep down I don't think she believes it. She has another article where she says:
Link:
http://alycelaviolette.com/Women-Who-Hit-Their-Male-Partners.htm
"Having said that," is just a drawn out way of saying "but" and we all know what people say you do with what comes before "but." Disregard it.
She did! In her article she lists 3 categories of battered woman syndrome. She then goes on to say that men have the ability to control or stop an aggressive act against them by a woman (rubbish). She then concludes that men don't fit the 3 categories of battered woman's syndrome because they can stop the aggression, they don't show fear, etc. She says fear is a requisite.
Bah.
Unbiased my ***. :furious:
I hope it's okay to discuss this, because I think it relates directly to the trial, IMHO.
Here's a quote:
"We would expect that a battered male would exhibit characteristics and behaviors present in abused women." And then she lists three.
So ALV is saying the way women react to something is the way
everybody should react.
But there's also this (hope it's okay to post, Mods):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=under-threat-women-bond
It's a short article from Scientific American about a study showing men react differently to a threat than women.
There's quite a few jaw-dropping statements in that really short piece by ALV, but I don't want to turn this into all Alyce, all the time.
Jodi Arias Murder Trial Day 46 Complete HD ( 4.12.13) - YouTube
Transcription from JSS ordering ALV to be back on Tuesday. It begins at 2:50:200 in the above YouTube:
ALV: "Your Honor"
JSS: "Sit right there"
Jury exits...
JSS: "Ms. LV, 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, so we will need you to be back here on Tuesday with regard to the time, I know that you have some other issues, but this is a priority, so because you cannot be here on Monday, you will need to be here on Tuesday, so it's either Monday or Tuesday. I'll allow you to decide which one.. date you prefer to come back."
____________________________________________________________
Here is my take on ALV being called back. The judge clearly states it's to
complete her testimony, so I don't believe it's the "Sam thing".
Over and over again, Juan has asked the judge if he can ask the "question" of ALV. He has done this numerous times which has always resulted in sidebars . On Friday, he again asked the judge if he could ask "the question." Before the jury questions, ALV kept maintaining her stance and denied any bias against men. The juror questions were very specific and at the end of the day, from her testimony, we find out she has never, ever, testified for a male in a criminal court, although her CV states otherwise.
I believe the juror questions and her answers have opened the door to specific questions regarding her bias towards men. I believe Juan has had the above articles/writings, in ALV own words all along. I think he has wanted to reference them in front of the jury, to show ALV's inability to view a male as the VICTIM of DV. I think Juan was restricted in asking about her writings, but now that the cat's out of the bag, he wants to impeach her entire testimony!!! He wants to go there and put it on record, the judge has said yes...finally.
From the beginning of ALV's testimony, Juan has continually asked about the "apology", magazines, "liking" JA. He does not ask questions without a purpose!
So, I think Juan is going to impeach her further. IMO - she is being called back to have those "questions" he has been begging the judge to ask of ALV. I think it's about her not having the ability to view a man as a victim.
JA was not the victim of DV! Had ALV been an "expert" with a non-bias opinion, like the other 6 people who turned down this case for the defense, she would have seen that Travis was the victim of JA.
JMO - for now. :facepalm:
Link to google book - page 155 is the page to view.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=DkPFL6XcKeQC&q=battered+husband#v=snippet&q=battered husband&f=false
First time multi-quoting. I hope I did it right and this makes sense. Everyone had such good posts and articles referenced, in regards to her stance on male DV. Thank you. :blushing:
