The Jodi Arias Trial--Fatal Attraction – The Murder of Travis Alexander

[HairOfTheDog]

^ I also meant to quote the part of your post referencing the suspect journal entries, not the magazine message, Barbara.

Did either request an independent polygraph to validate her responses and their conclusions?

A poly to assist rendering a diagnosis; If not . . . Why not?

FFS! You'd think Jodi would jump at the opportunity to have witnesses state she passed a poly to confirm their respective diagnoses of PTSD and satisfy the truthfulness of her portrayal of an abusive and pedo Travis.

Not to mention his being a demander of journal page removal, too.

Good question. I did a little searching; didn't find a peep about a poly in this case.

Guessing that Arias likely refused the LE poly and her defense attorneys knew better than to ask her to take a private one. She was already on tape as a proven liar and evidence-tamperer by time she was arrested. The public defenders were then assigned and stuck with Snow White. Easier to convince others that something is possible, no matter how ludicrous, if you don't know for a fact that it is completely false yourself.

The experts, on the other hand, chose to defend her and didn’t look beyond Jodi's own words because they knew that Jodi’s version of events is hers and hers alone. Performing like objective professional evaluators and exposing themselves to credible alternate versions might have precluded them from testifying in support of the defense’s story. They’d have lost their paid gigs. They may also be staunch opponents of the death penalty and feel the ends justify the means (don't know that to be a fact, but it could be another motivator).

Bottom line: IMO, the defense side of that courtroom has no interest in the truth. It defeats their purpose.

[d505]

x

[d505]

In my judgment, LaViolette looks like a gay rights anti-men type activist..wonder if any of the jurors on trial fit into that category.

[thekid65]

Good question. I did a little searching; didn't find a peep about a poly in this case.

Wouldnt matter would it? Inadmissible in court, right?

[HairOfTheDog]

Good question. I did a little searching; didn't find a peep about a poly in this case.

Wouldnt matter would it? Inadmissible in court, right?

They are admissable in court in Arizona, California and several other states, with stipulations (both sides agree to allow the results into evidence).

The biggest challenge for Arias is that she's a proven liar many times over; to LE and to a national audience in tv interviews. Those taped lies have been played several times for the jury.

There's no reasonable answer to the question, "why should anyone believe what she's saying now?" and I don't think the experts have helped in that regard. JMO. So, favorable poly results in Arias's case, even though the accuracy of LDTs would be argued by expert witnesses from both sides, could really work in Arias's favor with some jurors, imo.

Anyway, I didn't see any motions filed by the defense to allow polygraph results into evidence. Doesn't mean she didn't take any, and if she did, we don't know the results. Just speculating here. But, I don't think I've ever followed a case where a suspect showed "not deceptive" in relation to the crime itself and the poly results didn't get leaked to the public by the defense right quick.

[thekid65]

If I was her defense attorney, the last thing I'd want would be for this particular client to take a polygraph, and even have the potential for any results to be leaked.

[HairOfTheDog]

If I was her defense attorney, the last thing I'd want would be for this particular client to take a polygraph, and even have the potential for any results to be leaked.

If I were her assigned defense attorney, I wouldn't ask her to take a LDT either. I bet they didn't.

She's bold, so she might have agreed to take a poly for police when she was peddling her "wasn't there" story and/or "Ninjas did it" tale. But, seriously doubt she'd have taken one after getting lawyered-up and finally deciding on the "self defense" version of events.

Personally, if I was under suspicion, I wouldn't take a LDT, except in two cases where I'd be demanding it:

1. My child or someone I loved was missing or killed and I needed to be ruled out so police could move forward.
2. I was innocent and accused of a serious crime, with all the cards stacked against me and nothing to lose.

In both cases, I'd have a lawyer present.

I read that casting is already underway for a Lifetime movie about the case and would bet there are some interviews and book deals in the works with some of the case players. So, we'll probably start hearing more about what was going down outside of public view/records not long after sentencing.

[BlueTiki]

Personally, if I was under suspicion, I wouldn't take a LDT, except in two cases where I'd be demanding it:

1. My child or someone I loved was missing or killed and I needed to be ruled out so police could move forward.
2. I was innocent and accused of a serious crime, with all the cards stacked against me and nothing to lose.

Absolutely.

However, I wasn't suggesting that Arias request the poly . . . or her lawyers.

This was for the "experts".

To my knowledge, neither Spamuels nor LaVoyeur bolstered their conclusions by stating her statements were confirmed by an independent polygraph and not solely based on the definitive "statements consistent with others who . . ." mantra.

They never wanted confirmation of her statements.

The truth would jeopardize a guaranteed healthy payout and publicity.

Bloggers inside the courtroom are posting in and out of chamber's happenings.

LaViolette in and out. Detective Flores in and out.

[HairOfTheDog]

^ Oh yeah, neither of the experts dared undertake or request any means to confirm/verify Arias's own words because they knew the likelihood was high that they'd find she was lying. Elective ignorance to justify the exposure and profit of testifying in this case. Disgraces, both of them. IMO.

LaViolette sure can't answer a question directly.

She has a fickle sense of ownership when it comes to her "published" flexible continuum chart. Haha. She sure tried to distance herself from having used it in this case, though we saw it over and over during her direct testimony. She's gotta know that continuum chart is gonna bite her in the ass when Martinez applies it to Arias.

Martinez is going to not only question the validity of her opinion here, looks like he's moving towards calling her out as a liar/fraud in general. I think that's where he's going anyway.

[BlueTiki]

Martinez got her to admit that she rendered an opinion regarding a relationship between Travis and Lane without interviewing either party.

The same with Travis and Regan (sp?).

Nicely done having her acknowledge (her own words) that 90 percent of all communication (according to the clinical world) is non verbal.

Since she wasn't there and had only text messages to rely on . . .

He's pushing the possibility and probability of rendering an opinion based on "texts taken out of context".

And now Martinez gets LaVoilette to state she didn't believe that Arias was a stalker (or Travis had a stalker) even though it was stated by Travis, in a text message.

In other words: Travis is the only liar when it comes to writing.

Wow! Only her client is truthful and when she isn't it's because she's abused and frightened.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think Martinez is asking very legitimate and pertinent questions about LaViolette's assessment, and she essentially keeps responding, "but, but, but, but..., Mr. Martinez".

Tiki wrote: Nicely done having her acknowledge (her own words) that 90 percent of all communication (according to the clinical world) is non verbal. This was great. LaViolette is at least 90% in the dark as to what she assessed, according to her own clinical philosophy.

But, but, but... what LaViolette stated in direct testimony is now being used against her out of context (ironic claim, Alyce) and her clinical philosophy applies to everyone but Jodi Arias.

And, LaViolette is magic; she knows how the parties felt by reading their text/IM exchanges and surely those parties couldn't have had key communications by phone or in-person that could have affected her interpretations. If it wasn't on a piece of paper in front of her face, LaViolette apparently ignored it. She chose not to interview anyone involved in the written communications that she used to assess Travis and some of his female friends. Such a crock of shit.

I hope Martinez continues with the direct/focused approach he's using now; he's hitting the mark.

[HairOfTheDog]

If LaViolette were smart, she'd just answer Martinez's questions with "yes" or "no" and let Willmott clear up weaknesses on re-direct.

She looks like a dolt comparing herself to investigators and FBI profilers. She keeps defensively throwing out analogies in attempt to bolster the value of her work; analogies that she's not qualified to defend when Martinez calls her on it.

"There is no industry standard for rendering psychotherapist evaluations. There is no objective testing to verify the accuracy of a psychotherapist's assessment. I am not qualified as a clinical psychologist and I therefore employ no standards in my work and instead use my years of professional experience to develop opinions based upon evaluation of verbal and written communications." That's essentially what I think a credible psychotherapist would say/admit.

LaViolette's credibility is being undermined as much by her own deflection as by Martinez's characterization of her. IMO.

[BlueTiki]

Observers have noted at least four questions submitted by jury.

I was dumbstruck when she stated that as far as she could determine, Travis was the only liar!

IMO - She's leaving bigger skid marks than Samuels as she's swirling the bowl.

44 hours at $250 = $11,000 for talking to Arais.

XX hours at $250 preparing her "report" and "investigating"

xx hours at $350 for testifying

Plus she bills for travel, lodging and meals.

No wonder she doesn't answer "Yes" or "No".

[Duchess]

Wow...all that money & it doesn't sound like she is doing even a reasonably good job.

[BlueTiki]

I think . . . how many people I could feed.

How many children I could clothe.

How many families I could house.

How many dental procedures could be purchased.

How many vets could be helped.

And then I get angry.

[HairOfTheDog]

She is one high priced joke.

First, LaViolette says that she's justified in concluding that Travis Alexander was a liar and an abuser because of the context of THOUSANDS (yeah, we got it) of communications. And, aside from those pesky lies about killing Travis and covering it up and tampering with evidence, she sees no pattern of lying on Jodi's part.

Then, when presented with the fact that Jodi omitted major pieces of information (and lied about what she did disclose) in regards to the very text exchanges that LaViolette claimed led to her conclusions about Travis, she says that having that context withheld/misrepresented is irrelevant to her conclusions.

I hope the jury sees the absurdity and inconsistencies in LaViolette's testimony. It's clear that LaViolette's assessment was not objectively ascertained, as far as I'm concerned.

Really looking forward to hearing the juror questions.

[BlueTiki]

Well my, my, my . . .

Jodi believes she has an IQ equal to that of Einstein . . . Albert . . . not the bagels.

Jodi believed she would be famous and signed copies of her manifesto for future sales.

How's that for low self esteem!

[HairOfTheDog]

Well my, my, my . . .

Jodi believes she has an IQ equal to that of Einstein . . . Albert . . . not the bagels.

Jodi believed she would be famous and signed copies of her manifesto for future sales.

How's that for low self esteem!

I'm laughing too!

This is the first that I've heard about that manifesto. Bet it's an entertaining read.

I can't believe that LaViolette knew about its existence and didn't demand to read it. Manifestos are hugely revealing...actually, that's probably why she didn't demand to see it. The manifesto contents (and just the fact that it exists) likely contradict the "low self esteem" assessment that both she and Samuels espoused.

Martinez is really doing a good job today.

[Jimbone]

Holy shit, is this really still going on?

The OJ trial seemed shorter than this.

[BlueTiki]

The OJ trial seemed shorter than this.

Aww, hell . . . now you've gone and jinxed it!

His lasted damned near 9 months.