I know, she seems to be excusing Jodi's behavior of never writing anything about Travis' abuse or telling anyone about it and says that women who are abused seldom report it, but when Travis says he’s extremely fearful and complains about being stalked, she dismisses it because he didn't report it and he continued to see her. To me, this is such a double standard that she lost any credibility of being unbiased.


Good point, you can be stalked without even being aware of it, it’s still stalking behavior. She seems to be defining stalking behavior as to what it leads the victim to do. If they don't report it or file restraining orders, it's not stalking. I would guess that men are much less likely to do these things anyway.

I have a feeling the jury is going to slam her on this. They said the questions are piling up.

The media coverage of this trial jumped the shark again just now. It is cold and blustery here today and I can't seem to get warm - getting over a little dental procedure yesterday and a little bummed from pain. Been just hunkering down on the couch with a comforter and watching TV, surfing YT and keep up with that trial on HLN. But I just saw that Jane Velez-Mitchell/HLN character - the one that screams all of the time - standing on her head in an interrogation room, mimicking Jodi Arias' behavior!

What in the world?!?!? Why is this TV commentator taking up valuable TV time - when testimony is ongoing - with shots of her silly self standing on her stupid head in some police station?!?!?! And later is going to show herself being mock-interrogated by some police detective!!!! WHO CARES? Ugh-ugh-ugh! I wish we could just do without junk like that. I could care less about the commentators inserting themselves into this - just show the trial, have some commentary by so-called experts at the end of the show and be done with it. Wish we had the old Court TV back for the days I want to watch part of a trial!

Does anyone know if the prosecutor gets to bring in his own experts??

They might but probably don't feel they need to as this expert witness seems so biased to one side that probably most can readily see that. Apparently AL doesn't feel Alexander was in any way a co-dependent in that relationship and kept taking her back for his own sad reasons or needs. She gives him no quarter ever. All the bad came from him all of the time and Arias is just a pure victim. I am eager to see some of the jurors questions for AL - just hope the questions don't drone on for days and days.

Been thinking about the prosecution calling their own expert in this case more and I don't think they need to since this domestic abuse "expert" has proven to be so rigid in her assessment of the relationship that she's not that credible. Travis Alexander gets no points for possibly being a co-dependent himself at times and maybe even fearful at times - but I don't think a man's fear stays on and grows in the same way a woman's might, where she's essentially trapped by a cycle of fear and violence, often with no work skills, no advanced degrees and usually children. But I think most men don't fear a woman in the way women fear men. I don't think most men ever actually fear for their lives or personal danger so much - they may fear what the woman will do to their possessions or their lives such as slitting their tires, breaking their things, poisoning their dog or calling their boss or girlfriends or family, etc. But this LaViolette lady only seems to see Travis Alexander as the one doing all of the bad things throughout their ill-fated affair. Obviously, he kept being drawn back into the relationship by Arias, though he may be had times when he was actually personally fearful of her. And maybe that was quite enticing to him in a way. I've known more than one woman who were quite interested in a man because he was "dangerous" and they enjoyed that walk on the wild side to a certain sick degree. But to me this AL is so prejudiced against the man that I'm thinking she's discredited herself with so many of her answers, JM doesn't need his own expert.

Taken from: Fox Phoenix Mobile: Jodi Arias operating Twitter page from jail with outside help


A Fox 10 Exclusive PHOENIX -- Jodi Arias is at the center of one of the highest profile murder trials the valley has ever seen. And now she's tweeting from behind bars.

FOX 10 News has learned that Jodi Arias is operating her own Twitter page from jail, communicating with hundreds of followers -- mocking the prosecutor and even taking shots at cable host Nancy Grace.

The last tweet went out Tuesday night to her more than 500 followers.

"No boyfriend. Enough of that rumor." And "God bless five day weekends." Sounds like any normal person tweeting about their lives. But the person behind these tweets is the most famous defendant in the world.

But how can Jodi Arias use Twitter from jail? She doesn't have a computer. She does it through this woman -- Donavan Bering -- a close friend Jodi talks to almost every night on the phone.

Donavan Bering was sitting with Jodi's mother in court today.

"She'll call and say 'I have a quote.' We'll talk about it. Sometimes she says 'let's tweet.' And then she'll say 'no let's not do it.'"

Through Donavan, Jodi has been using Twitter to go after prosecutor Juan Martinez.

Tweeting, "Hmm... Anger Management problems anyone?" -- "He who tries to establish his point by much yelling shows that his reasoning is weak." And -- "Those afflicted with Little Man's Syndrome taint society's perception of genuinely good men who happen to be vertically challenged."

She went after HLN's famous court watcher Nancy Grace. When Grace tweeted a picture of her that appeared to show her making an obscene gesture with her hand in court, she tweeted, "Actually Nancy, that finger was for you. Have a nice day." And "HLN is an acronym for Haters Love Negativity."

"I think it's a way of her getting out her frustration, because she doesn't have a chance to say much," explains Donavan.

But she also uses Twitter to further what appears to be a healthy business selling her art from behind bars.

Jodi tweeted, "eBay has banned all listings of my artwork. The silver lining in making my art more difficult to obtain is that it keeps increasing in value."

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office knows about what's going on, but is not moving to stop it.

"We do talk about the fact that Jodi seems to be able to reach out into the community in various ways and profit from her notoriety. We don't like it... but there is nothing we can do about it," said Lisa Allen, MCSO spokesperson.

Jodi has not been convicted, which means the sheriff's department can't stop her from selling her artwork.

Her attorneys know she is tweeting, and apparently they aren't very happy about it.

I'd like to Tweet her a thing or two!!!

That's not a certified account but they are selling stuff from it by directing you to a website!!! Yikes! Free speech, huh? This is one case I'd love to see it stymied!

Am getting anxious to hear the tone of the jurors questions for Alyce LaViolette! I just hope they don't go on for days and days.

Arrogant beyond my comprehension. The woman is a case and a half. I would be quaking in my boots...just being in jail would drive me insane. I have to say that I would rather be sentenced to death than to live in a jail cell for the rest of my life.
I don't "get" the mentality of people like her.

I also have to wonder about the people who would pay for her art work.....

Please, Lord, make it stop!

I wish I someone would tie her hands behind her back.

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? :D I really believe Alyce is lying. I think she knows it too.

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!

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.

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

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? :D 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.

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

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.......

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

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... :-(

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.