Alyce LaViolette Day 38

Stephens: Ms. LaViolette, you are still under oath. Do you understand?
LaViolette: Yes, I do, your Honor.
Willmott: Good morning, Ms. LaViolette.
LaViolette: Good morning, Ms. Willmott.
Willmott: I want to ask you a question about the continuum that we talked about two days ago.
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay? And is that a continuum, do you use that exclusively when you’re trying to decide or make decisions about the type of relationship people are in, whether or not it’s abusive or not?
LaViolette: No, I don’t. The continuum for me was just a sort of a framework, kind of a way of thinking and um, other people use it, I use it, but it’s sort of something that’s in my head. But I’ve read, there are a lot of people in the field who have done some really wonderful work, Jackie Campbell, Alan Rosenbaum, Bob Geffner, Michael Johnson, Dan Sontag, and I’ve read their work, and I’ve used different things that they’re written as well. And I meet regularly with people who do the work that I do both with survivors and with perpetrators. And so I think I get the best from everybody because I get the things that are written and the research, but I also get to talk to with the people who do the hands-on work, and really, you know, for me make it alive.
Willmott: Okay, so when you’re assessing relationships, um, do they necessarily fit nicely and neatly into one of those columns that we looked at?
LaViolette: No, they absolutely don’t. I don’t think anybody fits nicely into a column. I think that what you look at is just sort of a range of behaviors, and what you’re trying to do with that is to, for me, I use it to think about what are some of the best interventions, maybe that I could be using to work with somebody and so I’m looking at different things that people do that might fit in different parts of the continuum, and ways that might be more effective in assessing, and then, coming up with ways to intervene.
Willmott: Alright, so um in your work, in speaking with all these women that you have, and the perpetrators as well over the years, is there, have you ever noticed whether or not survivors or victims have faced additional scrutiny based on the way social media seems to portray them?
LaViolette: Absolutely.
Willmott: Tell us why.
LaViolette: Well, if you look at the media portrayals of domestic violence, and I think particularly of three movies and then one that just came out this summer but The Burning Bed, I think was the first one that was really big, and Farrah Fawcett played the lead in that, and then there was Sleeping With The Enemy and Julia Roberts played the lead in that. And then you had Enough that starred Jennifer Lopez, and now you’ve got one that came out this summer with Julianne Huff, and in each of those portrayals what you see is a very popular female actress that’s usually beloved by many people, and she’s pure as the driven snow, and she’s never done anything wrong, and she’s portrayed as a saint basically on the screen. And then what you have, and I think it’s kind of a subtle manipulation of the way we think. You have lesser known male actors who become the perpetrator on these films. And what winds up happening, is you see these lesser known male perpetrators and they’re actually very one dimensional and they’re purely evil. They’re not people that anybody would want to be with and I actually don’t think they would have partners if they acted that way all the time. So we have this very defined, you know, sort of black and white category, pure good and pure evil and most anybody doesn’t fit into that. I mean, I don’t think I do, I don’t think most people I know do, and so what we do is we have this standard in our heads, and I think when most people think perpetrator they think somebody in one of those films. And I have yet to meet that person in thirty-four years.
Willmott: Let me ask you this, in all the men you have in your groups, and all the time that you’ve worked with the men is that what you’re saying, you have yet to meet to someone who is so purely evil like we see in the movies?
LaViolette: Yes, yes.
Willmott: Okay, and what about the women?
LaViolette: And I’ve yet to meet the woman who has no flaws. And I think sometimes we judge, and I think we tend to judge, my experience has been, um, when I did probation training I would take a formerly battered woman and a recovering perpetrator out to speak to the probation officers because I thought it would be a really good thing to be able to listen to people who have been through it speak. And there was almost always more judgment for the survivor than there was for the perpetrator, um.
Willmott: Let me ask you this, what do you mean by judgment?
LaViolette: Um, that the probation department or, and there were other places that I took people too, it certainly wasn’t just probation, but it was the view that, why didn’t she leave sooner, but if she left and the perpetrator looked like they were going change, why didn’t she go back? Why didn’t she forgive him? Even if they’d been back and forth a few times, so there was that look, whereas the perpetrator that spoke was seen as, you know, really trying to get better and change, and so there was a lot of encouragement for that. But the survivor was judged more harshly.
Willmott: Alright, and so based on these stereotypes, I guess, could you characterize them as stereotypes?
LaViolette: I would say that, sure.
Willmott: And so based on these stereotypes that we see in the media, have you seen problems then, with people in general being able to empathize with the survivor, the victim?
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Approach.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, you were just telling us an example of when you spoke to, I think it was probation officers and you brought a survivor and a recovering perpetrator?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And when you spoke to, and probation officers, are those people who work in the judicial system?
LaViolette: Yes, they are people who work in the judicial system.
Willmott: And, those probation officers, so they would see typically perpetrators, they would be actually working with these people who are perpetrators, is that right?
Martinez: Objection, leading.
Stephens: Overruled.
Willmott: They would be working with these people perpetrators, right?
LaViolette: Yes, they would.
Willmott: And when you spoke with this probation group, when you were talking with them, you were just telling us, did you notice that they judged the survivor more harshly than the perpetrator?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And have you given other talks to groups where you’ve noticed this different, um judgment, basically harsher judgment to the survivor versus the perpetrator?
Martinez: Objection, lack of foundation, groups.
Stephens: Overruled, you may answer.
LaViolette: Yes, I have, I have spoken to many different groups, representing, you know, social interest, business interest, social service interest, and there have been several documentaries, or a number of documentaries,
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: Are you aware of any documentaries that have been done with regard to this issue?
LaViolette: Numerous documentaries done on this issue and it’s one of the things survivors have said that
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: What do survivors say?
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: Survivors feel judged. Survivors have spoken about, um not being able to tell people and then when they finally did tell somebody, that people wondered what they had done to provoke it, or why they had stayed for as long as they did, or if there were children involved, the impact on their children. So there was a lot that they felt of judgment coming at them around this issue.
Willmott: Alright, and is this something, in your own practice, have you seen?
LaViolette: Yes, I have.
Willmott: Okay, I want to switch things over. I want to talk about what you’ve done specific to this case for Ms. Arias, okay?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: When you were initially retained, did you review different items?
LaViolette: I did, I was given not a lot, but I was given paperwork representing a variety of areas, and I was sent a box of paperwork to review and look over about the case.
Willmott: Alright, and after you, that was just a limited amount of paperwork, is that what you said?
Martinez: Objection, leading, lack of foundation, limited amount.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: Judge, she just said limited amount.
Stephens: Well, follow up.
Willmott: Okay, so did you end up getting more information later?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: So in the beginning, when you first got some information, was it limited?
LaViolette: Yes, it was.
Willmott: Okay, and so when you were reviewing this information, did you immediately take the case?
LaViolette: No, I did not.
Willmott: Did you go and speak with Ms. Arias first?
LaViolette: I did, I flew over and I went to jail and I spent eight hours in jail with Ms. Arias the first day, and between six and seven hours in jail with her the second day.
Willmott: Alright, and after speaking with her for two days, did you decide to accept the case?
LaViolette: I decided that I would accept the case, because I had questions …
Martinez: Objection, relevance, lack of foundation.
Willmott: Goes to credibility.
Stephens: Approach. You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, after you spoke with Jodi, did you decide to accept the case then?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: Alright, and after accepting the .. and did you get more additional information then, also?
LaViolette: Then, after I accepted the case and agreed to pursue the case and look at this information, I was sent an additional plethora of information.
Willmott: Alright, let’s talk about that plethora of information, what is it that you have reviewed?
LaViolette: I’ve reviewed seven hours of unedited footage that was done by CBS 48 Hours, and the edited version, I have reviewed journals that were written by Ms. Arias from the time that she was with Mr. Alexander until his death, I was uh, I reviewed IM instant messages, text messages, emails, from Ms. Arias, Mr. Alexander, Sky and Chris Hughes; emails, instant messages and text messages from Mr. Alexander to numerous women. I reviewed collateral interviews that were done before I came on the case. There were approximately, I think, around twenty collateral interviews that were done with Ms. Arias’ family and extended family, prior boyfriends, um employers, a couple of friends. I spent approximately forty-four hours in jail interviewing Ms. Arias. I went over Dr. Samuels’ report. I went over Dr. DeMarte’s report. I saw the crime scene and autopsy photos. I saw other photos that were taken on the day of the homicide and some family photos, as well.
Willmott: Okay. And you said you spent about forty-four hours speaking with Jodi?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: And during that time, you don’t do any scientific testing with her, do you?
LaViolette: No, I’m not an expert on testing.
Willmott: Okay. So that time that you spent with Jodi, is that just speaking with her and talking to her?
LaViolette: It’s speaking with her; it’s talking with her; it’s trying to get information that I need when I’m reading this documentation. Maybe I need clarification on some things, but it’s also creating enough of a connection that we’re able to talk with each other and she’s willing to share information with me.
Willmott: And is that um, is that something that you have to typically do with people when you’re just beginning to speak with them? Do you have to create a connection?
LaViolette: Absolutely. You um, I have to do that with anybody I work with, whether I’m working on court cases or whether I’m doing counselling, whether I’m doing public speaking, whatever that is, you have to create a rapport to have people be able to talk to you and feel comfortable enough to give you information that you’re looking for and when you’re asking people very personal questions, they have to feel comfortable enough with you to answer those questions.
Willmott: Do you do the same thing when you’re talking to men, perpetrators in your men’s group. Do you create a rapport with them as well?
LaViolette: Yes, I do and that was seen as collusion ..
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
LaViolette: Oh, okay.
Willmott: And when you create a rapport with the men in your men’s group, is that so you can ultimately get the information from them?
LaViolette: It’s not only so I can the information from them, it’s so they feel comfortable enough to work with me. It’s so that they feel that they can, that they trust me that I believe that they can change if they make an effort, that they trust me that if I give them some information and ask them to try something that they might be willing to try it.
Willmott: Okay. And when you create a rapport with someone, whether it be somebody from your men’s group or whether it be Jodi, does that mean that you like them necessarily?
LaViolette: Well, I’m not sure what you mean by like. What do you mean by like them? I mean, I do like the people that I work with. I don’t know. I like people. I mean, people, I’ve always been interested in people, I find people ultimately interesting, and I think that very few people are unlikeable. So I like people, and I’m willing, you know, so I sort of automatically kind of do that, but I’m not sure what you mean by like.
Willmott: Well, let me ask you this. When you like these people, and you create a rapport with them, does that mean that in some way, that it might cloud your judgment about the situation that you’re assessing?
LaViolette: No, I don’t think it clouds my judgment. I think it allows me to actually see more, because people will tend to feel more comfortable with you, and tell you more and maybe be more relaxed and willing to show you who they are a little bit.
Willmott: Okay, and would you say that goes with Jodi as well when you spoke with her?
LaViolette: I think so.
Willmott: Do you have any issues with feeling that the time you spent with her that somehow your judgment about what she’s telling you or about what you reviewed clouded your judgment in any way?
LaViolette: No, I don’t. What I do in any case,
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
Willmott: What do you do in any case?
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Phrasing of the question, sustained.
Willmott: How do you work your cases so that you make sure your judgment isn’t clouded?
LaViolette: I actually investigate any cases I work on, whether they’re family law cases, criminal cases and civil cases. I spend a lot of timing investigating them, because I don’t want to go on the stand and testify about something that I don’t believe.
Willmott: Alright, with.. You know, let me ask you this, did you ever give Jodi any magazines or books?
LaViolette: I did. I ordered a subscription to a magazine called OD for Ms. Arias, and I also sent four books for Ms. Arias to read.
Willmott: Alright, were these, what was the purpose for that?
LaViolette: I’ve done that for other people in jail because
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Sustainted.
Willmott: Judge, may we approach?
Stephens: You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, with regard to Jodi, sending her items, why did you do that?
LaViolette: I did that because I think jail is a pretty boring place and that people who are in jail and getting ready for trial, it’s from my perspective, not a bad thing for them to have materials that are either educational, and primarily educational or enjoyable for them to read, so I’ve done that in other cases. And I usually tailor that to whoever that it is I’m talking to. And I’ve had people, by the way, who don’t know me.
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: What have you had, have you done this in other cases?
LaViolette: I’ve done this in other cases.
Willmott: Okay, and because of that, does that somehow help when you’re doing your evaluations, your assessments?
LaViolette: Well, I’m not thinking of it in terms of helping me.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: I haven’t ever thought of it in terms of helping me, although
Willmott: Well, let me ask you this then, why do you do it, in other cases?
LaViolette: Why do I do it in other cases? Because
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, you just talked about how you did this for Jodi, right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Alright, and is this something that you’ve only done for Jodi, or do you do this in other cases?
LaViolette: I do this in other cases.
Willmott: Okay. And is this something that has been consistent for you?
LaViolette: It has been something that’s consistent for me.
Willmott: And do you see any issues, are there any rules against you doing this?
LaViolette: No, I ask the procedure. If someone’s in jail, I ask the procedure for sending materials and I do that according to whatever rules are at that particular facility.
Willmott: Oh, the rules for sending the items?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay. With regard to your licence as a therapist, are there any issues with sending a person books or magazines?
LaViolette: No, there is no, it’s not an ethical boundary.
Willmott: Alright. And uh
LaViolette: Unless you were trying to get something from somebody, which I’m not.
Willmott: Okay. Alright, alright, so let’s see, let’s talk about, let’s talk a little bit about what you’ve learned about Jodi, okay?
LaViolette: Alright.
Willmott: And I want to specifically talk about her, what you learned about her family of origin, where she came from, where she grew up. Okay?
LaViolette: Okay.
Willmott: Not specifically where, because I want to be specific, but speaking of the family that she grew up with, what do you know about her family with whom she grew up?
Martinez: Objection, lack of foundation.
Willmott: She already discussed everything she reviewed.
Martinez: Objection, speaking objection.
Stephens: Approach. You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, I know that we already discussed the numerous items that you’ve reviewed, but in those numerous items that you talked about, did you tell us how you have listened to or read interviews from Jodi’s family members?
LaViolette: Yes, I have.
Willmott: Alright and in doing so, and in speaking with Jodi, right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And in doing so, did you learn about her family of origin? The family with whom she grew up?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: Okay, so let’s talk about that okay?
LaViolette: Alright.
Willmott: Alright, so what do you know about, let’s talk about her mom and dad, what do you know about their relationship?
LaViolette: I read collateral data from Jodi’s grandparents and Jodi’s mother’s sisters, a cousin, I believe, a half-sister or a cousin, and her brothers and her sister. And I learned that in Jodi’s family, there was a certain amount of physical discipline, some which I would consider went over the line, and some that didn’t.
Willmott: When you’re speaking, can you tell us specifically what you’re talking about.
LaViolette: Well, probably not, I’m not sure at that time, but when you leave welts on a child and that was information that I was given; that they were hit with spoons. That her brother, Karl, feels that he’s very impatient and that was something, and too strict and too harsh, which was sort of confirmed by his fiancé at the time that I read it, with their own children and that he considered that he had gotten that from his father. Um, that between Jodi’s mother and father, that Jodi’s father was controlling and manipulative, and made derogatory statements; if her mother gained weight, or
Willmott: Let me stop you there, you said controlling and manipulative. Let’s talk about controlling. In what ways did you read about Jodi’s father being controlling?
LaViolette: That he was jealous and didn’t want her to spend time with family members, particularly her sisters.
Willmott: Didn’t want who?
LaViolette: Oh, I’m sorry, didn’t want Jodi’s mother to spend time
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: with the sisters. That he’s on dialysis and there’s a schedule for going to the hospital and that he would sometimes manipulate and wait until the last minute so that she couldn’t go, for instance, to hear Jodi sing the National Anthem when she went to sing the National Anthem, to attend her, I believe her mother’s funeral or grandmother’s funeral. And it was more that kind of thing, more sort of subtle but controlling behavior, that he was jealous. They said that and with Jodi, there were times that he was, I think, sort of inappropriate, at least in my experience.
Willmott: And what do you mean by that?
LaViolette: Well, when Jodi was in second or third grade, she told her dad that she had a crush on a little boy and they drove by the park, and her dad rolled the window down and screamed at the little boy, you want my daughter? I’m going to go home and get my toy, which was a gun. That he would talk about Jodi’s body, he would talk about her boobs being too small, that her friend had a smaller bootie than she did. I think, sort of, sexually inappropriate comments to your daughter. That’s the way I would see it.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: And that, just kind of things like hanging a picture of Jodi’s mother up when she was thinner, when she had gained weight. These sorts of less overt, more covert kinds of statements about you’re too heavy.
Willmott: Okay. Um, is this something that, well let me ask you this, are Jodi’s parents still married today?
LaViolette: Jodi’s parents are still married.
Willmott: And so is this something that Jodi would have grown up with? Did she see these things? Did she tell you that she saw these things?
LaViolette: Yes, she told me that she saw those things.
Willmott: Alright. And um, what is it that she learns from watching this type of family dynamic, with the father, with these issues with the father?
LaViolette: Well, over time when we talked, she said, you know, I learned about loyalty. I learned about, but the other thing that I think I learned was, and it was awhile before she said this, she said I think I must have learned about giving up the things I want for somebody I love.
Willmott: Is that how she saw her mother with her father?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And the loyalty aspects, her mother staying with her father?
LaViolette: That she’d stay; that she’d stay in a relationship whether it’s what you want it to be or not.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: By the way, a lesson that many survivors
Martinez: Objection, relevance to the question.
Willmott: What’s the lesson?
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: A lesson that many survivors have talked about, is that they saw things about staying through thick and thin, and even when they didn’t like what was happening, and that’s what they did.
Willmott: That they what?
LaViolette: That they remained in a relationship that was abusive, because the lessons they got growing up were that you stay in a relationship and you do everything that you can to make it work.
Willmott: Alright, and is that one of the issues that you see with the women that you work with of why they tend to stay, one of the reasons why they stay?
LaViolette: It’s one of the issues certainly.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: For many of them, not all of them.
Willmott: Right. Does it matter if a child like Jodi sees this versus hears something? Do actions, are actions stronger or words stronger?
LaViolette: Well, I think there’s an old saying that actions speak louder than words, and there are a number of commercials out now that will, on drugs, that show a parent smoking dope and then going in and going after their child, and said I told you not to do that. And the old adage, do what I say, not what I do doesn’t tend to work. We tend to learn so much more by observation. You know, we learn how to be who we are by observing people that we respect, or people that have power in our lives while we’re growing up by observing how they behave.
Willmott: Alright, and does Jodi talk to you about dealing, because of the issues between her parents, does she have issues with her mother?
LaViolette: She does have issues with her mother and I read some things her grandparents said that they believe that Jodi is angry at her mother, and that she is angry at her mother because Jodi’s mother didn’t protect her from her father, and that her father said mean things to her. And there weren’t details about what those mean things were but that was what the grandparents said. Um, so that was one thing. The other thing that I read was that once Jodi’s little sister and brother were born, and there’s an eleven year difference between Jodi and her younger sister, and about twelve or thirteen Jodi and her younger brother; that Jodi and Karl, the two older kids became invisible, basically and were just sort of left on their own at a time in adolescence when I think it’s kind of difficult, when kids need a lot of guidance.
Willmott: Alright, alright. I want to talk you now specifically about the relationship between Jodi and Travis, alright?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And at the time of the relationship beginning, where was Jodi as far as her relationship status? What was going on with her?
LaViolette: Jodi had been in a four year relationship and that was drawing to a close. It hadn’t ended but it was drawing to a close. And it was a relationship where she wanted to get married and wanted to have children, and that was sort of what she was looking at. She was vulnerable. I think when you come out of a long-term relationship for most people they’re fairly vulnerable at that point. And so she was in a vulnerable place, when she met Mr. Alexander.
Willmott: Alright, and what do you know about when she met Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Well, they met at a PPL meeting, a Prepaid Legal sort of conference in Los Vegas and conferences are pretty exciting places to be anyway and there’s usually a lot of energy at a conference, people get excited, and so she was at this conference in a sort of fun location and she was with friends, and Mr. Alexander came up to her, and said, hi, I’m Travis, and introduced himself, and pursued her.
Willmott: Okay. And did she, this was over a well, I guess, a long weekend right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And so did they end up spending time together? They had just, this is where they first met, is that right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And so did they end up spending time together then?
LaViolette: They did spend time together. He invited her to the executive directors’ banquet, which was a pretty prestigious event. It was an event for people who were, sort of, the high rollers in PPL, and Jodi initially said that she couldn’t go and she didn’t have anything to wear. And Mr. Alexander borrowed a dress for her from Sky Hughes, who was her husband was one of the executives in Prepaid Legal. And so Jodi went to that banquet which was pretty important, because she was introduced to important people. She had a good time and then she, Mr. Alexander had tickets to seating that was preferred seating for this conference, and so he invited Ms. Arias to sit in this preferred seating, and the two of them, were able to, you know, finish the conference seated in this really nice area.
Willmott: You mean she got to sit down in special seats, up close?
LaViolette: Yes, she did.
Willmott: Okay. And she got to sit in these seats because, who gave them to her?
LaViolette: Because Mr. Alexander had those tickets and invited her to sit with him.
Willmott: Alright. Would she have been able to sit there if it weren’t for Mr. Alexander inviting her?
LaViolette: No, she wouldn’t have.
Willmott: Alright, what else do you know about that particular weekend between the two of them?
LaViolette: Just that he pursued her, and that it was pretty exciting, and I believe, that was when he told her that he was Mormon, and she was very impressed with the family values of the Mormon faith.
Willmott: Alright, was that something, regarding family values; was that something that she was looking for with regard to her current status, her current relationship?
LaViolette: Yes. I think she was very disappointed that she wasn’t married and didn’t have children. She wanted to marry and have children. And so the family values aspect was very important to her.
Willmott: Alright, so what about this weekend? If we’re talking about a progression of a relationship, and if you’re assessing this relationship, what about this weekend that they first met, would be important to someone like you?
LaViolette: Well, what’s important to me, is that there’s such a power differential between the two of them. When someone has power, when someone is a high roller, when someone is prestigious in their faith, when someone courts you and woos you, and pulls you into a situation, there’s a power difference. Now would I look at that in every relationship? I do, actually when I’m assessing in couples’ counselling I look for power differences to see how evenly this couple is balanced with each other.
Willmott: Alright, and with, just looking at this weekend alone, does it mean necessarily that their relationship was abusive?
LaViolette: No, no, not at all. In fact, at the beginning of a relationship, whether it’s abusive or not abusive, they pretty much look the same. In a lot of cases, you know, they might not look any different at all.
Willmott: Okay, alright and then what happens when she goes home, when she leaves the seminar with her relationship with Mr. Brewer?
LaViolette: With Mr., oh, with Mr. Brewer, she ends her relationship with Mr. Brewer within about a week after she comes back from that convention, conference. And she ends her relationship with him.
Willmott: Alright, and does Mr. Alexander, is he pursuing her?
LaViolette: Yes, he’s calling her.
Willmott: Okay. And by calling her, is he inviting her anywhere? What is he doing?
LaViolette: Well, he invites her over to Sky and Chris Hughes’s house.
Willmott: Alright.
LaViolette: And she goes.
Willmott: Okay. And time frame, let’s talk frame, not exact, but when after the conference, about, is she going to the Hughes’s house?
LaViolette: Um, it’s about a week and a half after the conference that she goes to Chris and Sky Hughes’s house and meets Mr. Alexander there.
Willmott: Alright, and is this something that she has to drive to? Are they in the same city or different cities?
LaViolette: Um, Mr. Alexander, you mean the?
Willmott: The Hughes.
LaViolette: The Hughes lives in Palm Desert and, I think, that’s where Ms. Arias lives as well. She lives over in Palm, uh.
Willmott: Alright, do they, well, are you not sure?
LaViolette: No.
Willmott: Okay. That’s fine.
LaViolette: I know she lives close to there, but she’s not far away.
Willmott: Okay, and was Mr. Alexander in Mesa, living in Mesa, Arizona?
LaViolette: Right.
Willmott: Okay. So did they meet at the Hughes’s house?
LaViolette: They met at the Hughes’s house.
Willmott: And what do you know about that weekend?
LaViolette: During that weekend, when Mr. Alexander arrives at the Hughes’s house, there’s a period of time where he doesn’t pay any attention to Ms. Arias, and rarely, you know, doesn’t talk to her. And then, after a time, he sort of acknowledges her and they spend the rest of the evening and they’re watching videos, I think, that sort of thing. And then when they go to bed, when they go up to bed, after everybody’s in bed, Mr. Alexander sneaks into Ms. Arias’ room, and starts to kiss her. She says that she has felt very uncomfortable but she also is very attracted to him, and doesn’t want him to lose interest in her. And he begins to take her clothes off, which he does, and performs oral sex, and so they have oral sex.
Willmott: Alright, and at this point in time, she’s certainly not of the Mormon faith, right at this point?
LaViolette: She’s not Mormon, no.
Willmott: Okay, and did she speak to you about her being uncomfortable with that type of sex?
LaViolette: She said she was uncomfortable because she thought it was too fast, too soon, but she didn’t exactly know how to stop it.
Willmott: Alright, and she ultimately went through with it, obviously, right?
LaViolette: She did, she did go through with it.
Willmott: The fact that she was uncomfortable with the too fast too soon, but then goes through with it, what does that, is that important to you?
LaViolette: Well, the way it would be important to me is to look at it in a broader context, but certainly I think, one of the things that happens is that for many young women, it is very difficult to say no, especially if they are attracted to someone.
Martinez: Objection, other folks.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: With regards to your expertise, do you speak to other women about these types of situations?
LaViolette: Yes, I have.
Willmott: And what do you learn from these other women?
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: That when they feel pressured, they’re not sure how to stand up for themselves. Now this certainly isn’t every woman, I’m not trying to say that at all, but when you’re a more vulnerable woman, when you’re not a real assertive woman, and maybe when your boundaries aren’t as good, you’re much more likely. And when people are vulnerable their boundaries tend not to be as good, then saying no can be a more difficult thing.
Willmott: Alright, you said a couple of things in there, vulnerable and boundaries. Does that, does this instance tell you anything about what Jodi might have been going through at this time, with regard to her vulnerability or setting boundaries?
LaViolette: It speaks to both of those things. That she was vulnerable, which was about coming out of that relationship, that she wanted stability which she talked about, that she met someone who appeared to be very stable, who was of a faith that really supported and appreciated family, and that she was probably not real strong with her boundaries, or her ability to say no. And some people are better at that than others.
Willmott: Okay, after that night, do they go to church the next morning?
LaViolette: They do.
Willmott: And does Mr. Alexander do anything at church with regard to taking the sacrament?
LaViolette: He does, he takes the sacrament.
Willmott: And that point in time, was that, in speaking with Jodi, was that important to Jodi at that point in time?
LaViolette: I don’t believe so, because I don’t think, she hadn’t read the Book of Mormon yet, she didn’t know the parameters of the Mormon faith, so I would think it would not be as significant to her at that time.
Willmott: Alright. After that weekend at the Hughes, did they leave separately? Did Ms. Arias leave separately?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And did she go back to her house?
LaViolette: I believe she went back to her house.
Willmott: At some point I guess eh?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: When did she see Mr. Alexander again?
LaViolette: I think it was just a few days later. And um
Willmott: And when she saw Mr. Alexander what was the, what happened?
LaViolette: She met Mr. Alexander at a Starbuck’s and he gave her the Book of Mormon at that time, and challenged her to read it.
Willmott: Let me ask you this, Ms. LaViolette, time wise she had just met him, how long ago?
LaViolette: We’re looking within a two-week period, I believe at this point.
Willmott: Okay, so within a two-week period, they’ve had oral sex, is that right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And then he is stopping by the Starbuck’s. Is that where she lives?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay. So he’s meeting her in her town and giving her the Book of Mormon?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Alright, and what does he do after he gives her the Book of Mormon, you said, he challenges her?
LaViolette: He challenges her to read the Book of Mormon.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: And then he tells her that he’s horny, and they have oral sex. She performs oral sex on him.
Willmott: Where does this happen?
LaViolette: In a parking lot.
Willmott: In a car?
LaViolette: Oh, yes, in a car in a parking lot.
Willmott: Okay, and after she performs or gives him oral sex, does he leave?
LaViolette: He does. He gets in his car, and he leaves.
Willmott: Alright, with regard to this all happening within a two-week span of them first meeting, does that speak to her boundaries?
LaViolette: Well, to me it does.
Willmott: Okay, tell me what it means
LaViolette: But I might be comparing my boundaries to her boundaries.
Willmott: Okay, well as an expert then, with regard to assessing relationships, does it speak to what Jodi might have been going through at that point?
LaViolette: Well, yes because of the vulnerability coming out of the four-year relationship and because of the other things that I’ve talked about, I believe that Ms. Arias, and because of her family history, that her boundaries were probably a little more fluid than some other people’s boundaries at that point.
Willmott: Alright, and after this period of time, were Mormon missionaries ever sent to her house?
LaViolette: Yes, Mr. Alexander sent Mormon missionaries to her house, and it was before Mr. Brewer left, so he observed that, that bishops came to her home and they had Bible studies and they talked about the Mormon faith.
Willmott: Alright, and who sent those missionaries?
LaViolette: Mr. Alexander.
Willmott: And do you know how often they came?
LaViolette: No, I don’t.
Willmott: Okay. The next time, I want to talk to you about the time that they spent in Erinberg.
LaViolette: Alright.
Willmott: Okay? What do you know about Erinberg?
LaViolette: Erinberg
Willmott: About the meeting in Erinberg, not the town itself.
LaViolette: Okay. Erinberg was, occurred about a month after they met. And in Erinberg, they had planned a meeting, a get together, because they lived basically, you know, they lived in two separate states, so they planned to meet in Erinberg and from Ms. Arias’ perception, this was going to be a romantic weekend and a time to get together, and spend time with each other. Um, what she talks about with Erinberg, is that they got there and it was all about sex, and it was somewhat impersonal. Mr. Alexander was distant, and that the only time that he was really affectionate with her, in a non-affectionate kind of way, was when they walked out into a parking lot, and some of the truck drivers sort of looked at her, and were doing a body scan, I guess, and Mr. Alexander slapped her on the fanny and, in sort of a possessive way, and that was the extent of their time; that most of it was distant. It was sexual. It was not what she wanted. Once again, she went along with it, but she was not happy, it was not what she wanted.
Willmott: Okay. Um, but she stayed, you said?
LaViolette: She did.
Willmott: Alright, and you said that, some of the truckers, was this a motel at a truck stop?
LaViolette: Yes, it was.
Willmott: After, afterwards do they go their own separate ways?
LaViolette: I believe they do.
Willmott: Alright, and what happens afterward that’s important to you?
LaViolette: Well, he doesn’t call her for a few days.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: And she starts to wonder if she’s been used. She starts to wonder if he cares about her, and then he calls her and she feels good, because she’s been called. It’s sort of affirmed that he is thinking about her, he cares about her and there’s that bonding that occurs when you have that doubt, when you start to doubt whether somebody really cares about you. And that can happen in any dating situation, but particularly when there’s been all this sexual intimacy, the fact that somebody doesn’t call can really, in a psychological way, frighten somebody or make them apprehensive and make them self-doubting.
Willmott: Alright and so, is that what Jodi was doing?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Did she say she felt stupid?
LaViolette: She said she felt stupid.
Willmott: Alright, and so then after Mr. Alexander calls her, what happens to those perceptions, her feeling of stupidity or feeling like being used? Does all that go away?
LaViolette: It does go away, because she’s got confirmation that he’s thinking about her. She’s got confirmation that he cares, in effect.
Willmott: Alright. And so, what for you, in assessing relationships does this mean? Does this speak to hopefulness at all?
LaViolette: It speaks to hopefulness. It speaks to reinforcement, having a reward that things are okay. And reward is significant to people. And hope is significant to people. So the belief that this relationship is meaningful, and maybe has a way to go, and has a future.
Willmott: Alright; and when she is doubting herself, and feeling like she did something dumb, because she was used, does that speak to self blame?
LaViolette: It speaks to self blame; it speaks to self doubt as well.
Willmott: Okay, alright. Um, okay. Is it important whether or not, because they are engaging in these sexual activities, is it important whether or not there is a connection during these sexual activities?
LaViolette: It is important. I think it is important to anyone to have connection in their sexual activities, and so it is important. And sexuality is a very connecting thing. It’s a very powerful way, you know, to connect, and there’s a lot of emotion, and I think, there’s nakedness both in your body, but also if you’re connected, there’s that nakedness that you feel because you’re emotionally connected with each other.
Willmott: Alright, and did she talk about feeling any connection that weekend?
LaViolette: No, she didn’t feel connected. She felt sort of dismissed.
Willmott: Okay. Alright, we know that at some point she was baptized into the Mormon faith, right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And was that in November of 2006?
LaViolette: Yes, I believe it was.
Willmott: Okay, and by the way, Erinburg, was that in October of 2006?
LaViolette: Yes, it was.
Willmott: You said about a month after she met him?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay. And so within two months after meeting Mr. Alexander, who baptized her?
LaViolette: Mr. Alexander.
Willmott: Alright, and um, at the baptism, did she speak to you about the importance for her for the baptism?
LaViolette: Well, the baptism, first of all, baptism is incredibly important to people who are baptized because it has a tremendous
Martinez: Objection, lack of foundation.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: Do you have any knowledge with regard to Jodi being baptized and was it important to her?
LaViolette: Jodi’s baptism, Ms. Arias’ baptism was very important to her. It was spiritually significant for her and it was incredibly significant that Mr. Alexander was doing the baptism as well.
Willmott: Why was that significant?
LaViolette: Because she asked him to do it because they were sharing a spiritual experience that has great importance in the Mormon faith, and because it demonstrates a connection between the two people.
Willmott: Alright, how did she look at him at this point as far as in a religious manner? How did she perceive him to be?
LaViolette: Well, when you’ve been given the Book of Mormon by someone, who I believe, it’s called an endowed priesthood. I’m not sure, but he’s in the priesthood of the Mormon Church, so he’s seen as a spiritual mentor and actually spiritual guide. She called him a spiritual guide; that he was the person that would allow her to understand the Mormon faith, and to become more active in the Mormon faith. So I think he was her spiritual mentor, which is tremendous, you know.
Willmott: Judge, may we take a break please? May we approach?
Stephens: Yes, please approach. Five minutes recess. Only five minutes so please remember the admonition and be ready to come back in courtroom in five minutes.

( Recess, End Part 2, Part 3 Starts )

Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, I think we were just talking about the baptism, when Jodi was baptized. And with regard to the baptism, you were saying that she believed that it was a very spiritually important occasion.
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Alright, and what do you know happened after the baptism?
LaViolette: Well, there was, there was an opportunity for Mr. Alexander to pursue her and they had sex after the baptism.
Willmott: Okay, and was this back at her house?
LaViolette: I believe it was.
Willmott: Okay, and where, um or not where, what type of sex did they have?
LaViolette: They had anal sex.
Willmott: Okay. And did she describe for you what her thoughts were about that?
LaViolette: She described to me, she told me that Mr. Alexander told her that anal and oral sex were not sins, or as sinful, and that the real sin was vaginal sex, and so that they could have oral and anal sex.
Willmott: And so do you start to see any kind of conflicts going on with her?
LaViolette: Well, I think the conflict is that there is sex, and she’s now part of that. She’s in a sexual relationship. She’s not supposed to be sexual, you know, in the same way, but she’s got a spiritual mentor who’s telling her that this sex isn’t so bad and they can do this. And so, she’s now implicated. She’s now part of it.
Willmott: Alright, and after they have anal intercourse, does Mr. Alexander leave her?
LaViolette: I believe he does.
Willmott: Okay. I want to talk to you .. you said that in your review of this case, have you reviewed emails?
LaViolette: Yes, I have.
Willmott: And have you reviewed emails between Mr. Alexander and Ms. Arias?
LaViolette: Yes, I have.
Willmott: And have you reviewed emails, between well both of them, right, vice versa?
LaViolette: Right.
Willmott: Okay. Ms. LaViolette, I am showing you an email which has been marked exhibit 569. Just let me know if you need to review it.
LaViolette: I actually need my glasses.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: And they’re .. May I go get them?
Willmott: Judge, may she get her glasses, please?
Stephens: Yes.
Willmott: Okay, and I don’t need you to review the emails just yet. I’m going to ask you some questions first, okay?
LaViolette: Alright.
Willmott: Alright, did Jodi speak to you about an occasion when Mr. Alexander made a surprise visit to her?
LaViolette: Yes, she did.
Willmott: And was Mr. Alexander with a friend of his, Dan Freeman?
Martinez: Objection, leading.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: He and Dan Freeman came and surprised Ms. Arias at her home.
Willmott: And did she talk to you about that surprise visit then?
LaViolette: Yes, she did.
Willmott: (?What did she )
LaViolette: Well, it was a nice surprise, she wasn’t ready for it, but it certainly was something that she felt good about, although they came very late at night and she said she was in ratty pajamas and needed to fix herself up. And Mr. Alexander and Mr. Freeman, I believe, went to the Hughes house and Ms. Arias joined them later.
Willmott: And joined them at the Hughes later?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay. Alright and was this about in January of 2007?
Martinez: Objection, leading.
Stephens: Overruled.
Willmott: Was this about in January of 2007?
LaViolette: Yes, it was.
Willmott: Alright, and did you review, in working, did you review an email dated January 7th, 2007?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: And is that an email from Ms. Arias to Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Alright, and if you need to review the email, let me know. Ms. LaViolette, let me know if you need to review it, okay?
LaViolette: Oh, okay. Yeah, I do because I read so many emails that I would like to review it.
Willmott: Okay, because I’m going to ask you the importance of this email for you. Do you need to review that to refresh your recollection?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay, go ahead.
LaViolette: Oh, I just started reading it and I remember it.
Willmott: Okay. Alright, so this is an email from whom?
LaViolette: It’s an email from Ms. Arias to Mr.
Martinez: Objection, heara say.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: It’s an email from Ms. Arias to Mr. Alexander.
Willmott: Alright. And what is the context of the email? What is Ms. Arias discussing?
LaViolette: She’s discussing really the limits of their relationship. She wants to find out what the relationship is. What the relationship, how to define it, and she wants to know whether it’s monogamous, that she’s generally monogamous and that she hasn’t been with anyone but Mr. Alexander since Mr. Brewer and she wants to know what he wants from her.
Willmott: Alright, and is this important to you, this particular email?
LaViolette: This email, um, I’ not
Willmott: Go ahead if you need to continue reviewing it.
LaViolette: Okay.
Willmott: Oh, I’m sorry. Is Ms. Arias talking about, should she, the type of relationship and are they both monogamous?
LaViolette: Yes, she’s asking about
Martinez: Objection, hear say Rule 703.
Stephens: Approach. You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, in the beginnings of this relationship, do you see any seeds of jealousy coming from Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: I think less subtle or more subtle seeds of jealousy. One of the things Ms. Arias is asking for is clarification about the relationship because she hasn’t been in the dating game. Is what she basically says, that she hasn’t dated a lot
Martinez: Objection, hear say, Beyond the scope.
Willmott: Judge?
Stephens: Sustained as to that response.
Willmott: In summary, is that what she’s saying?
LaViolette: In summary, she’s saying in the email,
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: In summary, she’s saying in the email that she hasn’t been dating, that she’s been monogamous and has not had the experience of dating numerous people at one time, and that she’s wondering that although he says it’s okay to do that, she keeps getting the feeling from him that it’s not okay, and then she feels guilty and that somehow she’s betraying him. What I get from that
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question.
Willmott: Why is that important to you, Ms. LaViolette?
LaViolette: It’s important to me, because there’s a saying in the, I don’t know if it’s in all the world, but in the clinical world, that ninety percent of all communication is nonverbal. And that one of the things that we’re looking at is the communication, apparently by Mr. Alexander, that although he says it’s okay for her to date
Martinez: Objection, lack of foundation as to email.
Stephens: Approach, please. You may continue.
Willmott: Thank you, Judge. We were talking about if you see any seeds of jealousy in reviewing this email. Um, and so in reviewing this email, does Ms. Arias feel as though she shouldn’t be going out with other men, even though she’s not in a full committed relationship with Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Yes. Ms. Arias believes that she’s getting some messages from him that’s it’s not okay, but she also says that it’s not her, it’s not what she’s usually doing is dating more than one person at a time. And she’s not used to doing that, so she’s got some conflict about what that is, but she says that, and she also talks about not having, that it’s hard for her to say to somebody, it’s easier to say I have a boyfriend
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Willmott: Is this also evidence that you, in reviewing this email, you were about to tell us what she also says, is this also information that you’re telling us why you see seeds of jealousy and how Ms. Arias feels?
LaViolette: Yes. This is in the email.
Willmott: Okay, please tell us.
LaViolette: Um, that she’s not used to dating more than one person at a time, and so that part of that, is difficult for her and that it’s also hard for her to say, I’m not interested if she can’t say I have a boyfriend. It’s easier for her to say, I have a boyfriend than it is to say, I’m not interested.
Willmott: Okay, does that speak to you at all with regard to her boundaries or her vulnerability or anything like that?
LaViolette: Well, that it’s difficult for her to, I think, hurt somebody’s feelings. She talks about not wanting to hurt him and it’s hard for her hurt other people. Um, so I don’t think, I mean, I think it’s not just boundaries, I think it‘s experience. If your experience is that you date one person at a time, you don’t date multiply, it’s kind of difficult to date more than one person at a time if you’re not used to dating more than one person at a time.
Willmott: Okay, alright. And did you review emails from Chris and Sky Hughes to Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: And did you review a summation from these emails towards the end of January of 2007?
LaViolette: Yes, I did.
Willmott: And at this point in time, based on your information, did you, was Ms. Arias in contact with the Hughes? Had she, she obviously met them the first weekend, right?
LaViolette: She met them and they liked her.
Willmott: Okay, and after that had she seen them again? Do you know if they had contact?
LaViolette: I believe they’ve seen each other again.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: But I don’t know the extent of that.
Willmott: Okay, and based on your review of the emails, did they know who she was?
LaViolette: They knew who she was.
Willmott: Alright, judge may I approach?
Stephens: You may.
Willmott: I am handing you what’s been marked as exhibit 560, let me know if you need to review it, okay? I’m going to ask you questions about it.
LaViolette: Alright.
Willmott: Alright. Did you review emails that went back and forth, just basically a string of emails between Chris and Sky Hughes and Travis Alexander?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Alright, and with regard to that review, was this email important to you in your consideration about the progression of the relationship between Mr. Alexander and Ms Arias?
LaViolette: Yes, it was.
Willmott: Alright, let’s talk about why. What is it that you relied upon in this email that is important to you?
LaViolette: Well, I relied on a number of things. Chris and Sky Hughes were very important to Mr. Alexander. He had a close relationship with them. They had a five-year friendship, so in terms of what I read, they seemed to be as close to him as anyone else, in regard to the emails I read. And they had status with him, what they thought of him was important. Ms. Arias also liked them quite a bit and they seemed to reciprocate in that regard as well.
Willmott: Okay. So, in your understanding, was their opinion important to Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Their opinion was important to Alexander, Mr. Alexander, and they definitely had an opinion.
Willmott: Okay, and in reviewing the emails, what is it about this string of emails that speaks to you with regard to their relationship?
LaViolette: Well, a number of things, I mean, there are a number of issues addressed in the email. But the Hughes are talking about their
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Stephens: Approach please. You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, in reading through this email string between Travis and Chris and Sky Hughes, we don’t need to read through the whole thing, but, or quote from it necessarily, but what do you get about the substance of this email string that’s important?
LaViolette: Well, this is an incomplete email string
Willmott: Okay
LaViolette: But I know what was said in the emails going back and forth. I can certainly sum it up.
Willmott: Does it continue on to January 31st?
LaViolette: It does, but there’s a double copy of the top email and there’s missing emails here.
Willmott: Okay. So you read
LaViolette: Page 2, 3 and 4 are duplications of the, the first three pages are the same.
Willmott: Okay, and then, you know, that it goes, there are emails from January 31st?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: And the first email is actually
Martinez: Objection, there is no question before her.
LaViolette: Oh, I’m sorry.
Willmott: Let’s talk about the first email.
LaViolette: Okay. The first email, the subject is, you crossed the line, and it’s an email from Mr. Alexander to the Hughes because they’d talked to Jodi, and basically, the conversation was from Mr. Alexander’s perspective, and the way that he interpreted it, which I don’t think is too far off base is that they told her
Martinez: Objection, lack of foundation as to how she knows Mr. Alexander.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: We’re going to talk about summaries. So when you say that they told her, what you’re talking about is the summary, is that right?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: You’re not quoting from the email? You’re not exactly giving us the exact quote, right?
LaViolette: No, I’m not.
Willmott: Okay, so the summary is what giving me, so now go ahead please.
LaViolette: The summary basically is that Mr. Alexander is saying, that he basically told
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Willmott: Judge, just because she’s saying, saying, doesn’t mean she’s quoting.
Stephens: Approach, please. You may continue.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, I just want to be clear. I know when you’re say, he said or, and you’re talking about that, you’re not quoting from the email are you?
Martinez: Objection, leading.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: I’m actually taking the written word, and summarizing it.
Willmott: Okay, alright. Let’s try this again, the email that we’re talking about. The first email, is it important, I want to talk to you about what’s important in there, what type, the context of the email and the subject matter of the email. What does it tell you with regard to their relationship? Again, please don’t quote.
LaViolette: I’m not quoting.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: The synopsis is that Mr. Alexander has written to his friends
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope of the question, hearsay and relevance.
Stephens: Restate the question.
Willmott: What’s the importance of the email?
LaViolette: The importance of the email is that Mr. Alexander has responded to the Hughes, and the Hughes have basically indicated to Ms. Arias
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: They have basically advised Ms. Arias to move on from the relationship.
Martinez: Objection, rule 703.
Stephens: Overruled. That answer may stand.
Willmott: I’m sorry, what did you say Ms. LaViolette? What did the Hughes advice Ms. Arias to do?
LaViolette: They advised her to move on from the relationship. That Mr. Alexander has been abusive to women
Martinez: Objection, that’s not indicated in there and.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: The previous, the question with regard to whether or not the Hughes thought that Mr. Alexander had previously been abusive with women, is that important to you?
LaViolette: Yes, it is.
Willmott: And does that help you to formulate an opinion, ultimately, about the type of relationship that this ended up to be?
LaViolette: Yes, it does.
Willmott: And so in this email, is there information contained in the email about whether or not Mr. Alexander’s closest friends thought that he had issues with women?
LaViolette: Yes, there is.
Willmott: Alright. And what type of behaviors were the issues that Mr. Alexander seemed to have, based on what his friends thought?
Martinez: Objection, hearsay, specific 703.
Stephens: Approach please.
Willmott: Ms. LaViolette, contained in that email string, is there an email from Chris and Sky Hughes to Mr. Alexander?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: Okay. And in that email, is there important information to you about what other people think or see how Travis is treating Jodi?
LaViolette: Yes.
Willmott: And what is that information that is important to you?
LaViolette: Information about his prior treatment of other women.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: Information about her fear of telling him anything that she has a problem with, because he may reject her, that she doesn’t have an opening to tell them.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: Information that, about his childhood that they think has greatly affected him in relationship to women.
Willmott: The type of childhood that he had?
LaViolette: Yes. Information about other specific women that he has been with and the way he has treated them. In fact, information that said
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Willmott: You’re not going to quote, are you?
LaViolette: No, I’m going to paraphrase.
Willmott: Okay.
LaViolette: I can paraphrase?
Stephens: Overruled.
LaViolette: Information that Mrs. Hughes, Sky Hughes gave that said, if Mr. Alexander wanted to date
Martinez: Objection, hearsay.
Stephens: Wait, hold on.
LaViolette: Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t hear.
Stephens: The objection is?
Martinez: Hearsay. Said, she said the word, said.
Willmott: Judge it’s already been ruled on. She’s paraphrasing.
Stephens: Ms. LaViolette, are quoting something or are you?
LaViolette: No, I’m not.
Stephens: You’re indicating the type of information provided?
LaViolette: I am.
Stephens: Alright, you may continue.
LaViolette: If Mrs. Hughes’ sister wanted to date Mr. Alexander that she would forbid it.
Willmott: And is that based on some of the behaviors that they see Mr. Alexander doing with other women as well as Jodi?
LaViolette: Yes.
Martinez: Objection, leading.
Stephens: Overruled.
Willmott: Is that a yes?
LaViolette: Yes, that’s a yes.
Willmott: Okay, and so is that the important information that is contained in this email for you?
LaViolette: There’s more in depth information that goes into some of the things they’ve observed about Mr. Alexander’s refusal to look
Martinez: Objection, goes beyond the scope of the question.
Stephens: Sustained.
Willmott: Is there other information that you considered contained in these emails?
LaViolette: The details of his refusal to look at his childhood, and his responses about him maybe needing counselling and being willing to look at that.
Martinez: Objection, beyond the scope.
Stephens: Overruled.
Willmott: I’m sorry, his responses of what?
LaViolette: The response that actually Mr. Alexander gave his interpretation that they thought he needed counselling, which they also indicated, that he thought that he was greatly affected by his childhood, and he was afraid to look at it because he was afraid that it would make him look weak.
Willmott: Okay. Alright, is there any other information that you considered important to your evaluation of the relationship contained in these emails?
LaViolette: There was reference to a particular woman and his manipulation of that woman. There was information about Mr. Alexander calling Ms. Arias a skank and then acting like it was a joke. There was information about the way he ignored her in public places, and would not allow her to put pictures of them up in places where other people could see them. Just basic ways that he treated her, or they felt that he mistreated her; that they actually said, well, that they indicated were abusive, that he called rough around the edges, and they called abusive.
Martinez: Objection, (speaking over Ms. LaViolette)
Stephens: Ms. LaViolette, when there’s an objection, please stop talking.
Martinez: and lack of foundation.
Stephens: Counsel, please approach. You may continue.
Willmott: Based on the information that you read, with regard to the behaviors that the Hughes noticed with regard to Mr. Alexander and Ms. Arias, do you consider any of this type of behavior abusive? Or can you make that assessment at this point?
LaViolette: I’m making an assessment based .., I’m using that information in a context of other information, to make an assessment.
Willmott: Okay, so is this
LaViolette: And this, oh I’m sorry
Willmott: I’m sorry, go ahead.
LaViolette: And it’s significant because these are two people who he values most in his life apparently, at this time, and who also very much value him.
Willmott: Okay, and so is this information something that is important to you when you’re, like you said, with the context of everything going on?
LaViolette: Yes, it is.
Willmott: Alright. Judge this is probably a good time.

Stephens: Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Next week, would any of you be unavailable to start at 9:30 each day, anyone could not start at 9:30? And there is no court this afternoon, no court on Monday. Tuesday you need to be back here at 9:30. At this time, I would like you to go back to the jury room. We are going to be speaking with you individually, but please go back to the jury room. Remember the admonition. We are at recess.

Next : Alyce LaViolette Day 39