****Jodi Arias - Oh My Goodness!!!****

[yorkietalkjilly]

This lady - moreso than any witness in any trial I've ever watched part of except for Arias - is giving me hives. I pray I never have to see or hear that voice or face again EVER. She's every bit as aggravating as Jodi Arias herself!!!!!! What a pair - she should adopt Arias and can enable her from now on that way!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

When Alyce is asked, “ Have you ever hugged or touch Jodi in a friendly way, while Alyce is saying , “No I don’t think so, I may have toucher her arm,” and Jodi is mouthing, “Yes.” Who should we believe? I really believe Alyce is lying. I think she knows it too.

Every time she starts with her hands I think she is lying. I really do think she is making stuff up as she goes along. This is about money in my opinion. She is not convincing at all .. well, to me that is.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

This lady - moreso than any witness in any trial I've ever watched part of except for Arias - is giving me hives. I pray I never have to see or hear that voice or face again EVER. She's every bit as aggravating as Jodi Arias herself!!!!!! What a pair - she should adopt Arias and can enable her from now on that way!

Yeah, she is really getting on my nerves. I find myself changing the channel a lot.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Every time she starts with her hands I think she is lying. I really do think she is making stuff up as she goes along. This is about money in my opinion. She is not convincing at all .. well, to me that is.

Her answer about not taking the case if she hadn't believed Jodi was a good one. That's the difference between a forensic psychologist and someone with a master’s degree. She's really a victim's advocate with an expertise in domestic violence, and she has gone into this as Jodi’s advocate. A forensic psychologist has to promise in writing to remain unbiased and will testify for either side. Her inability to give an inch really makes her lose her credibility.

About her lying, do you see a pattern? I'm so sick of that statement. I also heard 5 times she called it a murder, I know she corrected herself once, but that's the only time I noticed it. Seems to me she'd call it something else, if she really didn't believe it was murder.

[ladyjane]

Just her comparison of a liar and a person who tells an occasional untruth said it all. Mind blowing....

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Her answer about not taking the case if she hadn't believed Jodi was a good one. That's the difference between a forensic psychologist and someone with a master’s degree. She's really a victim's advocate with an expertise in domestic violence, and she has gone into this as Jodi’s advocate. A forensic psychologist has to promise in writing to remain unbiased and will testify for either side. Her inability to give an inch really makes her lose her credibility.

About her lying, do you see a pattern? I'm so sick of that statement. I also heard 5 times she called it a murder, I know she corrected herself once, but that's the only time I noticed it. Seems to me she'd call it something else, if she really didn't believe it was murder.

And, yes, her credibility is out the window. That is why Jodi is holding back tears...she knows it. As I said before, I would stand up, tell her to stfu and ask the judge to remove her. No way would I want my life hinging on her testimony. Of course, I have to wonder how many people would take this case.......

[ladyjane]

OMG..... "I don't know what kind of lie you are talking about" ..... Is this woman serious???????

[My guy Charles]

I just saw on the news there is a petition started to make sure Laviolette is never hired again to speak publically!! I'm seriously considering signing it.... I am sooooo sick of her lies and deception and her bias - she and Jodi must be related..?!! I continue to feel so sorry for Alexander family.
The news also said people were making negative comments about Laviolette on Amazon on her book review....she has angered many people!
This trial is causing me anxiety because I am so afraid it's gonna be like Casey Anthony all over again... :-(

[yorkietalkjilly]

The defense probably would have been wiser to have chosen a forensic psychologist, one who at least wasn't so obviously tainting her every answer with her biased advocacy. One who could speak to Arias' own psychological problems and her role in the relationship with a man who was apparently psychologically damaged and unstable himself; but as a defense witness, could still say that doesn't mean she didn't fear for her life when the man "attacked" her. But if Alyce LaViolette isn't credible, can't see the things about Jodi that led to her murdering a man when he rejected her, then her whole testimony isn't ultimately helpful to the defense and just cost those citizens in that jury and all the other Arizona taxpayers a good chunk of money for nothing. She seems unfair and narrow-minded in her blame of only Travis Alexander as being the only abuser in that relationship. Arias comes across as every bit as poisonous in her own right but Alyce never accepts that. I think the defense needed an expert to testify Arias was emotionally abused at times but also recognize, at least when asked, that she was not the sole victim in that relationship. Would have at least made their testimony appear analytical and objective as a so-called expert witness..

I would think that any reasonable person can see she's not fairly assessing Arias' calculating behavior in constantly luring Travis back to her using his own weaknesses and preying on him almost relentlessly. Further, AL is even dismissive of any suggestion that Arias has such a pattern of lying since her youth, that she could just as easily be lying about an "attack" by Travis in that bathroom and that her off-the-grid trip to Mesa was for one thing - to either win him back or murder him so he can have no other woman but her.

From the way that Travis talked to Jodi at times, it's almost as if he was trying to humiliate her so she would go away and leave him be, as he seems so co-dependent he appears powerless to fend her off for good - but Arrogant Alyce doesn't see that - all she sees is her poor little Jodi being "battered" by the bad man. It seems pretty obvious to me that both Travis and Jodi seem stuck in a vicious cycle of kinky and degrading interactions but Travis didn't know he actually had a tiger by the tail. I don't think he had any idea he was seriously in actual physical danger until the end. I simply cannot see Arias as the only victim in that relationship and feel that she well understood she had power over Travis Alexander by being his emotional and sexual slave and preying on his own psychological disorders. She seems to qualify as a true emotional predator after learning more about her but apparently Alyce sees none of that. I think AL hurt their case by perhaps angering some of those jurors with her stubborn bias.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by My guy Charles

I just saw on the news there is a petition started to make sure Laviolette is never hired again to speak publically!! I'm seriously considering signing it.... I am sooooo sick of her lies and deception and her bias - she and Jodi must be related..?!! I continue to feel so sorry for Alexander family.
The news also said people were making negative comments about Laviolette on Amazon on her book review....she has angered many people!
This trial is causing me anxiety because I am so afraid it's gonna be like Casey Anthony all over again... :-(

I don't think so....I cannot imagine anyone buying this story ....Jodi's or her expert's. I don't know where they dug this "expert" up from....but they would have been wise to toss her back in the same hole a few days ago.

[Nancy1999]

I wonder if they will report all the people they tried to hire? Do they get their money even if they refuse the case, I mean for time they have spent reading? Of course, $300.00 an hour would be hard to turn down, especially since she's an expert as far as NOT giving a yes or no answer.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I wonder if they will report all the people they tried to hire? Do they get their money even if they refuse the case, I mean for time they have spent reading? Of course, $300.00 an hour would be hard to turn down, especially since she's an expert as far as NOT giving a yes or no answer.

She is definitely an expert at that...but that, I believe, was the start of the unraveling. While people thought he was rough on her, I think he had a plan. I think he had her nailed from day one and sought to do exactly what he is doing..

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

She is definitely an expert at that...but that, I believe, was the start of the unraveling. While people thought he was rough on her, I think he had a plan. I think he had her nailed from day one and sought to do exactly what he is doing..

I'm beginning to see that too, at first, I was upset b/c he didn't try to use her expertise to support his case, I mean, she seemed like a sweet lady. However,it must have been obvious to him, there wasn't a chance in hell she'd ever do this, so he had to treat her this way.

[Nancy1999]

Have you guys heard about the rumor of impeachment?

Impeachment of an expert witness is the process of calling into question the credibility of the expert during cross-examination. According to the United State Federal Rules of Evidence, any party may attack the credibility of any witness (including an expert witness) during a trial.

Adequate preparation before the trial begins is essential for the successful impeachment of an expert witness. Such preparation involves becoming familiar with the expert’s credentials as well as the subject matter of the cross-examination.

Lack of qualification is an initial challenge to any expert. Does this expert possess such specialized knowledge of the subject of his or her testimony that the court should declare this witness to be an “expert”? This is where it pays to spend significant time scrutinizing the expert’s credentials.

Juan hinted at this today when bringing up her lack of a doctorate and questioning her educational background. I would say that someone who thinks that stabbing someone to death and shooting them in the face is not greater domestic violence than calling someone a three-hole wonder is evidence enough of lack of qualifications.

Bias is one of the most common strategies for impeaching a witness at trial. This involves demonstrating that the witness is motivated in his testimony by personal gain – actual payment for testifying in that particular case or the hope that testimony in this case will lead to more business as an expert witness. Repeatedly testifying for the same side during trial is also sometimes grounds for impeachment because of bias.

It was interesting today that Alyce spoke up, unprompted about her retirement fund, and despite it being poorly funded….and Juan cut her off. Why was Alyce bringing up her financial status?

Inconsistency is another reason for impeachment, and is generally the easiest to prove. If the expert witness has previously made two or more conflicting statements, or if prior testimony is in conflict with the testimony being offered during the current proceedings, a strong case for impeachment due to inconsistency can be made. Previous statements, such as those on affidavits, sworn statements, or previous depositions, should always be thoroughly reviewed prior to the beginning of testimony by an expert witness. Contradictions or inconsistencies made during the current testimony can also be used as grounds for impeachment.

Juan brought up inconsistency today as well. He made sure to get the change in her story about where Jodi was when she shot Travis into the record one more time today. On several other occasions he specifically said, “isn’t that inconsistent with your previous testimony?” Alyce has recently stated she had ‘mispoken’ enough times that we actually jokingly use the word ‘mispoken’ in the same way Alyce did. “I misspoken.”

Character of the expert witness can be called into question during cross-examination in order to prove justification for impeachment. If the witness has a reputation for dishonesty, or has committed a crime involving dishonesty, such as fraud, embezzlement, or perjury, a case for poor character can be made. This can go a long way toward convincing the court and jury that the testimony of the expert witness is not credible. Specific examples of prior dishonest acts or crimes are not admissible unless the witness admits to them while on the stand.

It certainly seemed as though Alyce perjured herself today with regard to the question about testifying in criminal court on behalf of male domestic violence victims. I picked up on her lying and obvious incongruent body language right away. Juan was quick to jump on that. In fact it was his first question when he got his turn with Alyce today. Alyce essentially said she ‘misspoken’ again.

I think I have a pretty credible case for us hearing a motion for impeachment next week. Do you agree? Do you have a better theory? Will Alyce Laviolette Be Impeached As An Expert Witness? | Tamara Tattles

So I wonder what happens if that happens, new trial?

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Have you guys heard about the rumor of impeachment?



So I wonder what happens if that happens, new trial?

Oh good Lord, I hope not.

I just found this:

Reasons to Receive a New Criminal Trial - Lawyers.com

You can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court is very strict on what evidence types support a motion for a new trial. The four criteria that must be met to base a new trial on newly discovered evidence are:

The evidence is newly discovered and not known to you during trial
The evidence must be material and not merely cumulative
Your failure to learn of the evidence wasn't for lack of diligence
The evidence will probably mean a different result at a new trial
If you know about evidence at the time of trial, you can't claim after trial the evidence is newly discovered. Newly available evidence isn't the same thing as newly discovered evidence. If you know the substance of the evidence at trial, you can't later claim it's newly discovered.

The evidence must be material to the main issues of the trial. If the evidence is merely cumulative of evidence that the defendant already has in his possession, it won't support a motion for a new trial. Also, evidence that just further impeaches a witness whose character has already been shown to be questionable doesn't support a new trial. To impeach means to question the credibility or honesty of a witness.

If the defendant could have discovered the evidence using due diligence, it won't support a new trial. Courts expect defendants to make an effort and discover any evidence that'll support their positions. They won't allow a defendant to have a new trial based on evidence that he could have easily found.

The last requirement is that the evidence will probably result in the defendant being found not guilty. The defendant isn't entitled to a new trial if the evidence wouldn't have made a difference. All four of these criteria must be met in order to base a new trial on newly discovered evidence.