This expert did nothing right imo.
She said she 'assessed' Travis yet she does not have the credentials to assess anyone much less Travis who she has never spoken to nor even tried to speak with his friends. She could have contacted his family but if they told her 'no' then she couldn't have made them speak with her but she didn't even try.
All she did was murder Travis all over again based on no evidence.
IMO
I did some googling, came across some other sites, and will paste some comments I found here in this one post, instead of making several. Pastes below
===========================
coolflannelcat1 3 days ago
I am a therapist with the same credentials as Ms. LaViolette. She has overstepped her credentials.
She is not qualified to get on the stand with her master's degree and come to the conclusion that Travis Alexander was a perpetrator of domestic violence. This therapist has annihilated the code of ethics for her profession. She has based her opinion on the lies of a murderer and has shown no care or empathy for the family of the victim (that would be Travis Alexander, not Jodi Arias.)
===================================
Originally Posted by Dr. Nick
I'm brand new here but have lurked for a long time. I've learned so much from the legal experts and the keen-eyed observers in the JA trial threads. Thanks to all of you!
As a psychologist, I've watched in horror as two of the worst examples of "experts" from my profession have done everything possible to undermine the credibility of the field in front of a national audience. Of course there is always some subjectivity associated with the analysis of human behavior, but adherence to scientific principles can produce reliable and verifiable results. Unfortunately, charlatans can use the language of the field to lend false credibility to almost any opinion.
I'm hesitant to question JM's judgment on any aspect of his cross examination, partly because I thought he was amazing (no notes!?!) but also because I would never want to incur the wrath of his fans here. I am new, after all. Still, he could have hammered ALV on her lack of scientific rigor, especially her repeated assertions that she was able to do all of the diagnostic work "in her brain". An absence of written work to explain in detail how her decision was reached is a huge red flag.
Also, the definition of
"stalking" doesn't require the victim to respond in any particular way.
Here's the American Psychological Association's description:
"Stalking refers to repeated harassing or threatening behaviors that an individual engages in such as following a person, appearing at a person’s home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person’s property. These actions may be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm, and they may or may not be precursors to an assault or murder"
====================================
Alyce is lying at the College like a fraud wth
http://www.csulb.edu/alumni/association/bod.html
Alyce LaViolette
'69, B.A., Psychology
'74, M.S. Psychology Marriage and Family Counselor
Founder Alternatives to Violence
Under oath she testified her MS was 1980
Jodi Arias Trial - Day 41 - Part 3 (cross starts) - YouTube 33:05
she is presenting herself at the college as getting her Masters in 1974 .
Under oath, knowing JM would know, she testified she got her Masters in 1980 Even bragged she finished it in 2 yrs. This would mean she wasn't even going for it six yrs earlier like she has frauded on the College site listing w the 1974 date. She embellished SIX years at the college listing
