04-08-2013, 07:06 PM
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.
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.