Why does alyce laviolette have to return on tuesday

Has this become theater of the absurd? Plus, is prosecutor Martinez losing the jury by being too aggressive? Is that -- was that, in fact, the way you viewed your testimony? Yes or no? Do you want the truth, Mr. There he is stretched out, enjoying the life he was about to lose in a vicious killing. And fireworks in the Jodi Arias courtroom. A verbal slug fest as prosecutor Juan Martinez and the defense domestic violence expert go out it in an explosive showdown.

But when the fairytale Snow White is dragged into court, has this trial gone completely off the rails? Good evening. Jodi admits she killed Travis Alexander but says it was all done in self-defense. Well, take a look at this new video of Jodi as a bridesmaid, courtesy of Nancy Grace.

Oh, she looks so dainty here. Could jurors have a hard time imagining this petite little thing could have plotted and executed such a violent and brutal killing?

The star witness for the defense has painted Travis as a womanizing, cruel abuser who called Jodi every name in the book and smacked her around. Listen to this. And another one? He hates her. She lives a life identical to Satan. She never loved him. But on cross-examination prosecutor Juan Martinez was furious and fired back at her, attacking her credibility. Martinez, are you angry at me? Do you want to spar with me? Is that -- will that affect the way you view your testimony?

What a shouting match. Should Juan be yelling? Should Alyce be talking back? Stacey Honowitz, Florida prosecutor.

This guy has been doing it for an awful long time. I was at one time the same way. Tensions were exploding in court as this prosecutor went after this defense expert. So essentially giving Jodi a reason to kill Travis Alexander, in essence. So the prosecutor is furious. Now, it seems like he met his match. Alyce LaViolette was actually talking back. Is she supposed to do that? Is that -- will that affect the way you view your testimony. Jon Lieberman, is this defense witness sassing the prosecutor?

He is speaking for Travis and for the people of Arizona. And as was said a little earlier, this is no different than Mr. Martinez has been the whole trial. And yes, I think he is frustrated with this witness. I think he is angry at this witness. And especially because 95 percent of her testimony is based on things that were told to her by a proven liar, Jodi Arias.

This is an expert witness. Expert witnesses are treated differently. And second of all, you know, all of you on this panel are saying that he -- that she, the defense witness, is trashing the victim, Travis Alexander.

In a bubble. You made a point. I beg to differ. What he is doing is diminishing a domestic violence as a DSM analysis and diagnosis, saying that there is no such thing. You have text messages of the deceased. You have e-mails, communications of Travis Alexander. So these are his words. This person is analyzing the communications and the dynamic in this relationship. It has to come out and be analyzed.

He sent some very nasty instant messages and texts to her, but she is taking at face value what Jodi Arias said about him slapping her, no proof for that, him choking her until she went unconscious. No proof for that. He threatened her. Just like Jodi on direct. Martinez continues on cross with her. Not at all. That was a simple yes or no question. And you gave me a simple no. Prosecutor Juan Martinez And -- OK, I agree.

Why does she have that ability to make this general She is an expert accepted by the court. And they will get a jury instruction that expert witnesses are treated differently. They will have an instruction by the judge that she has met the qualifications of an expert. I put a DNA expert on all the time. They cross-examined it. Why did Snow White get involved in all of this?

Do you have a memory problem? But did he go too far? She lived in what can be best described as less than ideal circumstances, right? No one of her own age is there, right? Jean Casarez, "In Session" correspondent, you were there.

You were in court. What the heck? Good reasoning in this blog. Much better than a lot of the panels on US tv. I have to say that like Canada we here in the UK also have some very robust barristers who are just as passionate as Juan. I hope the Alexander family get justice and find piece. It makes me sick to see them having to listen to Travis being carved up again.

Very good points made here. Although I read a few, I have only blogged one website and that is for my G. One question? My guess is it may indicate a Motion in Limine. Here, here! I hope some of you stick around when we get back to the usual banal reality show gibberish. Reblogged this on Jodi Arias Trial. I think the Wong thing is a separate issue. She is part of the current mistrial motion. Two issues. One brought by defense mistrial motion one bought by prosecution perjury charge.

Lorraine: While Ms LaViolette may be in deep dirty water over lying to the jury, she may also be in some hot water for addressing the Alexander family in court. That too was caught by people in the courtroom. The defense mistrials motions are, in my opinion, only good for the record. They are hogwash!!!!! When you take the oath to tell the truth, how do you sit there in the witness box and lie, and not get get busted by the court?

JM caught her in a flat out lie and nothing happened. I am hooked on this blog too, now that I found it…. Does anyone know what can happen if Tuesday morning is in fact a Motion in Limine, and ALV is found guilty of perjury?

Is it just sanctions, such as a fine? Or, could their be greater consequesnces to ALV, and this is possibly what has caused her to go to the emergency room; as she saw her career go up in flames?

As she dodged the questions, refused a straight answer, etc. Once, maybe; but repetetively — never! Or, stretch the truth — exagerating her abilities , or leave things out, to make it sound better; like Jodi! She got herself in this mess and is an embarassment to herself, her profession and expert witnesses as well.

She is likely feeling the repercussions of her shame and looking for anyone or anything to blame for her lack of professionalism. She has made a mockery of her testimony. It would be unusual to block further testimony because she made some technical mistakes see post below. It would be extremely unusual for her not to return or attempt to withdraw as a witness.

Hearings must be set. Most charges are not pursued unless egregious. I do believe JM could render a motion of admonishment and it in fact would be brought before the jury so the records would reflect testimony stricken and disregarded or a jury instruction. After I did a little research, found Motion In Limine is much more serious for the prosecution appeals! As I read all of your comments since last night, it is beginning to make sense why Judge Stephens was sort of nasty to Alyce when she told her that she MUST return to court either Monday or Tuesday.

Susan P. Fantastic work, Tamara. Yes it is an industry. Laviolette book, priced at approx. Sick philosophy coming from men-hating, radical feminists and lesbians. I will be forwarding to them the over negative reviews this trash has received on Amazom. Laviolette spews hate speech. Edwards, I agree that La Violette has done a grave disservice with her testimony to the many legitimate abuse victims out there.

I do not think that Amazon is the appropriate forum for people to vent; however, perhaps they feel it is the only or most convenient forum they have.

As a librarian I can tell you that all libraries have collection policies as well as policies to deal with complaints involving resources they would like to have removed. Resources books, DVDs, maps, realia, etc. Thanks for the reply, Ana, but would a library keep a book that was blatantly misogonistic? Miss LaViolette is aware of recent stats that indicate that women are equally aggressive and abusive as men. Due to most men being stronger women receive more bruises, etc.

She is so caught up in her man-hating that she will never change her stance. She has made her bread and butter off the backs of women.

Do libraries keep books that represent fact but are in fact fantasies made up by a group of disgruntled men hating radical feminists and lesbians? Note: Not all feminists are men hateres nor are all lesbians but they are the ones who seem to gravitate to the domestic violence industry. I know of no library, and I use many, many libraries, that would consider allowing a misogonistic book on their shelves. Why the double standard? What you have to remember is that Freedom of Speech, protected by our Constitution, applies to library collections.

If it does, it will be kept even if some of the opinions expressed within are unpopular. A collection policy for a university or public library will be much broader due to the population it serves than a high school, middle school or elementary school. Collection policies are formulated based on the population being served. For school libraries curriculum must be considered, but you also must consider items for personal interest reading, and those must be appropriate for the age level being served.

Again, since universities and public libraries serve patrons of all ages, the criteria are much, much broader. If you are truly interested in pursuing your request to have the book removed, you need to contact the collection librarian of each institution and get a copy of their collection policy. Typically, you have to fill out paperwork indicating what you want to have removed and why. It is a very controversial area due to the Freedom of Speech issue. I know the ALA has some strange stands on certain issues.

The library decided to have the book in the collection but patrons had to ask library staff for the book. As per ALA or so we are told any person of any age was permitted to view the book. She has done enough damage to herself. BTW I actually went to one of the local university libraries. The copy I saw had pages ripped out, foul language written on it.

Well said. If she can believe Jodi and Snow White are battered woman, than what man stands a chance against her biased testimony. She is a fraud and an unqualified witness from henceforth. I was not looking forward to it. However, half-way through the semester, I decided to include wmns studies as a second major microbiology being the other. Wmns studies is not the stereotype you are perpetuating. It has a focus on wmns rights, ie: the right to vote, equal pay, etc. No bra burning or man-hating.

Meaning, i attend trade shows as an exhibitor, including the NRA show. I also do not find JM to be abusive or intimidating, as he is doing his job as a prosecutor.

You may want to actually google wmns studies, at the very least, before you get your panties in a twist over the crazy schools, with their man-hating, lesbian, woe-is-me, agendas.

Do you actually believe that men and women have different rights in ? Hell, I would bet you a Mary Daly book that he would have been on death row years ago. Are you saying your courses say something different?

Equal pay. Do you think that if Mrs. Wilmott and Mr. Nurmi have the same educational background and the same amount of years on the job that Mr. Nurmi is making more money? If women make less money for the same job it is because of life decisions they make.

Your comments sound a bit misogynistic and uninformed. Daryl, name me one occupation that women are payed less than men? An expert should generally not be smiling in a murder case. It would be quite striking if the testimony shows that Ms. She may have gone beyond the scope of her practice, especially when stating that the MPPI-2 could be rather easily faked. This witness is not a forensic psychologist. The current expert witness, Alyce LaViolette read other expert reports where the defendant stated the shooting was in the closet.

However, the expert witness incorrectly wrote that down in her report. She stated she misspoke when telling the prosecutor that in her interview with him.

Thus, not only did she simply copy what others said, but made a subsequent mistake in a criminal case interview. It seems she never did or wanted to correct the mistake. Excellent Blog but I still have a question. She can not put herself out to the public as such a professional nor can she testify in a court stating she is an expert.

If she has put herself out to be this then criminal charges can be brought against her in a criminal court. And btw I have almost 43 yrs in health professional investigation with the government. In which state? Since she does NOT hold a doctorate she must be supervised by one that holds that degree. For the love of GAWD. She is a licensed therapist in California.

She got her license in I believe. I should have just deleted the post about it before it eve hit the board.

Lesson learned. I went for a major search of the records and she has been licensed as a marriage and family therapist only. I believe she did overstep her licensure by testifying to JA state of mind. That is a diagnosis which as a therapist she can not do. This is why JM brought up she could not give test nor interpret them. Thanks tamara! Under the laws of the State of California, she is a licensed psychotherapist.

I think I will just copy your comment into some sort of file I can just paste over and over. Wish I had done that over a month ago. Meanwhile, there are plenty of places to criticize Ms. LaViolette if that is the mission. This is not one. I am so sorry Tamara being new I did not realize this. Also, having worked for the govt investigating health professionals this is the first area I look at. I also look at the laws and rules and regulations governing the profession.

A perjury charge typically occurs after the trial is over. A technical error would not lead to a perjury charge. That is, whether an expert wrote a report or gave actual testimony probably is not enough to reach the level of perjury. It certainly seems to be inappropriate. However, impeachment is another story. Execellent information. Alyce thought she was smarter than Juan just like Jodi did. The wrath of Juan is on the horizon.

Patti I love it when they underestimate some one like Juan. Remember the old TV series Columbo? Laviolette DID lie under oath, but I highly doubt she will be charged with anything. All LaViolette has to say is that she believed she was giving truthful testimony. Just the way it is…. I believe it may have something to do with her Alyce Laviolette approaching the family during a court break. A definite no no. Not sure though. The defense and prosecution MUST be able to ask the person questions under oath in order for it to fly.

One can only trust the reporting of those who attend major trials, such as that of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, that you may have heard anout. I guess money talks.

I still think about that case, I know they served time but Karla living her life now as another person, new name, etc. She will always be a calculating killer on my eyes. Imagine what her parents must think if they are still alive and her sister is not.

Here is a perspective. Nobody likes Alyce LaViolett. But, she has suffered and will continue to suffer. Two of the three will be deceased.

The survivor will be ridiculed for the rest of her life. Everything else that she did was beyond stupidity and easily ridiculed. Dr Samuels should remember AL in his will. God bless the Alexander Family and pray for the continuing objectivity of the Jurors. Love the perspective! The sad part is that initially on direct I had a lot of respect for AL.

I thought, this could be bad…. And then Juan stepped up to the plate and she took on a completely different demeanor. Her posture changed, her tone, her facial expressions and most importantly her responses.

She totally blew it by being evasive, non-responsive, combative and even demeaning in her replies. I became frustrated and consequently scrutinized her reason for being so difficult. In the end I concluded that her testimony was uninformative and biased.

As her testimony draws to an end I find her dishonest and therefore what she testified to holds no value. Sad to waste so much time and money on this so called professional. Di you also notice that LaV.

Passive-aggressive, obtuse. I have been irritated that the judge has allowed her to do so. I got somebody who will be remembered from this trial. The most important one of all…. Non other than my main man Mr. Juan Martinez.

This guy should have his own TV show. I have man love for JM. Stewbee, JM will be famous Currently Famous in any future scenario.

He is not done yet. Not only with this trial but with whatever is brought before him. JM for president? Maybe not president but secretary of defense. Did I hear that right? I believe Miss LaViolette has a son and daughter and according to others has a female lover.

She replied that she had a wonderful father and a wonderful son. No mention of husband or former husband. Exactly annie no mention I thought! Makes one wonder! I would think if she was married or had been or had a personal relationship she would mention that.

I know she is licensed as a psychotherapist, but IMO, she should have an honorary doctorate in misandry! These posts are music to my ears! Although christian, nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing A. She should be held either in contempt or impeached. I jump whenever he starts to cross! He is SO sharp and LaV. I am obsessed with this trial. I believe she plotted her revenge, planned it carefully NOT carefully enough then proceeded to lie, lie, lie to everyone.

I am generally not in favor of the death penalty, but believe there are some cases where an exception should be made; this case is one of those. Did you notice when she said how she felt ashamed?

Not once! They act like Travis died from some incurable disease, or a car wreck, instead of being slaughtered at the hands of the defendant. She has never apologized or said she was sorry as far as I can tell. She is definitely a piece of work. I have read on another blog that features artist and they are all upset because the drawings her mother is listing as originals on ebay are all tracings.

It infuriates me. He is such a dynamic man. I believe he represents the outrage of the entire public at having to listen to this circus. The crime was gruesome and heinous 2. JA is a sarcastic and diabolically heartless individual 3. What do you make of the fact LaViolette told Martinez, in their initial interview, that Jodi her she shot Travis in the closet and found the knife beside the bed?

Do you think she was coached by the defence attorneys to change her notes? Very suspicious! She has on more than one occasion changed her answer on a later day about a specific issue with JM using info that she previously did not have because she could not watch witnesses testify. I feel sure at least some of the jurors noticed. Hello all, fascinating information on this page. I have been engaged an active dialog regarding this issue. Below is the Official Arizona legal definition of perjury.

See if you catch what I caught and know she is possibly in deep fecal matter:. Definitions 1. Whether a statement is material in any given factual situation is a question of law.

Perjury; classification. A person commits perjury by making either: 1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.

Perjury is a class 4 felony. False swearing; classification A. A person commits false swearing by making a false sworn statement, believing it to be false.

False swearing is a class 6 felony. Perjury by inconsistent statements When a person has made inconsistent statements under oath, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single charge alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.

Limitation on defenses A. It is no defense to a prosecution under this chapter that: 1. The statement was inadmissible under the rules of evidence; or 2. The oath or affirmation was taken or administered in an irregular manner; or 3.

The defendant mistakenly believed the false statement to be immaterial. The provisions of law which declare that evidence obtained upon examination of a person as a witness cannot be received against him in a criminal proceeding do not forbid giving such evidence against the person upon any proceedings founded upon a charge of perjury committed in such examination.

Proof of guilt Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for perjury or false swearing and it shall not be necessary that proof be made by a particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence. Looks like could apply. I agree. They never lived together…she just stayed over occasionally. Thanks so much for the research!!!! ALV is a licensed marriage and family therapist.

Very limited since she only holds a master. I love how that one blogger stated ALV should put on her big girl panties and suck it up with all the negative things being said and done to her. Alyce is a disgrace! She killed Travis all over again with her never ending- biased testimony.

She has been an unprofessional, disrespectful and hostile witness towards the prosecution. Not to mention a condescending little liar.

I have had this on my mind, I wondered how many lives she has destroyed when she has testified in family court. In fact, she should call Snow White and ask for her apple pie recipe! I cant believe the judge allowed laviolette to act like that on the stand. Oh btw, is anyone sick of the female defence attorney and her buddy-buddy relationship with her client?

Makes me gag when I see them cozy up…. Ugh so sickening, looking forward to seeing what happens with ALV on Tuesday! Watching JA and JW whisper into each others hair, they look like a couple of teenagers in high school gossiping about people. It makes me sick the way that they are trying to make JA look like an ugly child. I especially hate when she pulls half her hair back like a five year old. Maybe braces on her teeth?

And have you noticed that everything she wears is too big, she has never ONCE worn a skirt or dress, and those pants she wears are miles too big on her. Nancy I feel the same way it is unprofessional of JW to be so friendly with her client.

I have noticed in some court cases like this they do dress their clients to suit the circumstances like in the Anthony case to me this is very deceptive. I chat with my attorney all the time in court waiting for out call. She invited me to lunch during a break in all the waiting but I had other things to do. Oh and I wrote tons of notes to her at the table while Sheree Whitfield was perjuring herself on the stand.

Defense attorneys are people we hire to work for us. They are not there to support anyone else. Willmott sounded nervous, looked nervous and very unconfident on Friday. She is in over her head and was unqualified to defend this killer.

But they probably had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an attorney for JA. I find it hilarious JA wanted to defend herself. I wonder if JW will be taken to task since she was responsible for this two defense experts as to preparing them to take the stand? The note was something like. Talk to me before going on TV again.

But this is my recollection. Or my glasses. Can I go get my glasses? Hang on gotta pee. I had no idea it was meant for her. That adds a whole other dimension to this case. It sounds to me like they were collaborating on their story. Yes, it was that is why JM brought it up! Apparently he interviewed him. When Mr Martinez asked LaV.

Alexander was NOT very afraid of ja. Tamara you make absolute sense about the impeachment. Great observations by you and Juan m. No objection here. The lord is guiding Juan m.

He is Travis voice for justice. We cannot allow Ms. Arias to make a mockery out of butchering a human being. Another to improvise. So JW needed to reassure Alyce by basically testifying, by feeding her leading questions surprised that was allowed. JW kept leaping in with objections and sidebars to distract and buy time for ALV to work out an answer. My theory is that she had Travis keep his eyes closed…pose…including the arms across the chest pic which is a death in a casket pose…and had him open his eyes at the moment she was going to shoot him.

He probably knocked the camera out of her hand trying to defend himself. She tries to shoot him again, but the gun jams she used this in the ninja story. JA returns with a knife she grabbed from his kitchen, and the struggle to live begins. Is there any time stamps that proved when each pic was deleted? This would proved whether she deleted all the pics at one time after the killing. My two-cents:. After seeing her in pigtails and a Superman T-Shirt, I believe that she connected with TA that the intensity sent her back to that first love at 16 years old.

She was NOT going to be rejected. I believe that SHE introduced HIM to the kjink and it clicked with some of his family of origin issues and he learned how to mood-alter with the sex creating and internal conflict with his moral code aka Cognitive Dissonance. All future relationships on HER terms. The other men she dated do not complain about her because A.

She has serious blackmail material or B. They always gave her her way. And she was happy when she dumped them for the next step up. Pay for play….. While Alyce was on direct, the people on HLN were suggesting that JM would have to tip-toe around because his agressive aproach may backfire with the jury. HLN further went on to question their tv jury if that was the case. IMO, a softer style would have been absolutely the wrong strategy in dealing with AL. AL more than deserves all the criticism she is receiving.

Jaun is superb. On the other hand, JA has a clueless look. Maybe Wilmont should wise her up. It looks like Nurmi already knows that the case is over, and he is ready to move on. Wilmont acts like she actually believes Arias. JA reminds me of Manson in the way she can mesmorize people.

They are apologizing, sending her books and cards, and getting all touchy with her. Hardly objective assessments in my mind. Jaun has done an awsome job! Vyle would be squirming just like LAV! Since the Casey Anthony case which was highly unusual, jurors are more apt to be engaged especially high profile cases. Having served as a juror IMO it is very unlikely this panel will not agree arriving at a majority decision.

If there is a member s that have the opposite decision the foreperson along with their supporting members will debate with those not in agreement to arrive at a unanimous decision. I do NOT believe this will be a hung jury. Does anyone know, if she is impeached and her testimony is stricken, whether or not that would forfeit her huge payday? If the defense is not allowed to use her testimony, useless as it was, then I.

From the start, her smirky comments… mirrored JA as JA probably wanted them to be. The boys had been living since last year with their maternal grandparents, who were granted permanent custody Tuesday. That long-ago safety scare, prompted by hundreds of lawsuits claiming birth defects, proved to be a false alarm.

It is widely believed to have undergone more scrutiny for safety than any other drug used during pregnancy. Skip to content Share Icon. Facebook Logo. Link Icon. In the Nation.