04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[AngelWings444]

Respectfully, snipped by me.

May Justice come soon, for this man and his family. :rose:

 

[Callisto]

So if this Dr Geffner rebut the BPD diagnosis, that doesn't really change much... Really, Dr Samuels even diagnosed her with personality disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), sooo they can't say she has no personality disorder and that all her issues are a result of PTSD or DV right? Or else they'd be calling Dr Samuels diagnoses incorrect...I really would like to know what Dr Geffner would bring to the table and none of his reports or existence has even been mentioned; would that mean he never interviewed her or evaluated her? Hmmm.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[FairWorld]

JM has first dibs on that title (but in a more positive way)! :drumroll:

When I think of Jeanie Willmott, especially when questioning Demarte, the animal that comes to mind is a mosquito annoyingly buzzing around the witness. Makes one dream of Deet.

 

[SCSam]

Who the heck IS this guy and exactly what can he say about anything ??????????

:banghead::jail::facepalm::banghead::jail::facepalm:

In this case, he has a "Dr." in front of his name so I guess he can say whatever the DT wants to rebut Dr. D. Sure do hope the Judge has grown a pair over the long break or we could see this with each of Juan's rebuttal witnesses.

 

[verbonica]

I'm aghast at what I am reading here about the DT's latest attempts to keep this trial going ad infinitum. I have been concerned over the past couple of weeks that jurors are going to get fed up and will ask to be let go.

I can't believe that the DT can claim "heat of passion" and ask for the jury to consider manslaughter when it's patently obvious that Jodi premeditated this cold-blooded murder. Manslaughter would likely mean that JA would qualify for time served and would walk away a free woman at the conclusion of the trial. Jodi would revenge on anyone whom she feels has ever wronged her, and she would surely go after Travis' family, friends, Juan Martinez, witnesses for the Prosecution, etc. Scary to even think about it. :moo:

I hear ya'; but remember it is not up to the Defense to prove that she is innocent. The prosecution must prove that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense is just throwing a bowl of spaghetti at the wall to see if something sticks with ONE JUROR regarding "reasonable doubt".

 

[NashBridges2]

A surr-rebuttal and lesser charges?

Why should another quack doctor who hasn't even met with Jodi (unless he's doing that this weekend) be allowed to testify?

How can it be self defense OR crime of passion?

This scares me. I don't think Juan has convinced every juror this was pre-meditated. He needs to do MORE. He needs to prove 3 gas cans, 3 gas purchases, something. I don't know. I feel absolutely sick.

One thing I am CONVINCED of, is that there is NO WAY she will be convicted of a lesser charge such as manslaughter. I know for a fact there are more than a handful of jurors who will NOT budge off 1st degree. So chances of hung jury have increased in my mind.

 

[nic2200]

What I am most surprised about is that the defense was able to come up with another Dr. who is willing to stake his entire career on Jodi! Obviously this Dr. hasn't been paying attention to this case.

But if her mental state isn't in question - I mean, they haven't tried for insanity - why does ANY of that matter???

They are NUTS if they think "crime of passion" fits her testimony! I mean, TRAVIS was the one enraged, not JODI...according to her anyway.

How does that fit a crime of passion? The ONLY thing her testimony fits is self defense. Since of course, she TOLD US she made stuff up to fit the evidence!

I mean, this seems pretty clear to me. Are the lawyers really THAT stupid?

I'm really behind on this thread. Sorry. But..... If they had an actual PhD that was willing to testify in favor of JA on the issue of domestic violence.... WHY did they not just call that person the first time instead of ALV?? This makes no sense to me. Did this guy ever evaluate or test Jodi? I don't think we've heard his name associated with this case. What could he possibly rebut? :banghead:

 

[AZWatcher]

I guess we should have expected more stuff to be thrown at the jury since the working theory doesn't appear to be sticking.

What's next.... a pocket hose expert claiming that all pocket hoses are weapons of mass destruction and Jodi's brain scrambled when she saw one?

I smell a man 2 conviction ... and I don't like it.

My patience doesn't have an app for more of this bullsnip.

 

[DebinGA]

I don't know about others, but I'm not clicking on any link unaccompanied by some indication of what it is.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, it did. I say we have no more penis talk. Code is... POCKET HOSE.

Roflmao!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Litigatrix]

Perhaps Arizona is different, but in most jurisdictions it is "reversible error" for the Judge to disallow surrebuttal testimony on new matters raised by the Prosecution in many circumstances. That means that the jury verdict could later be overturned by a higher court.

*snipped

Which is ridiculous not just because this case has gone on long enough, but because it is an egregious waste of the jurors time.

Quoting myself here but did some quick research and wanted to correct myself. Arizona is stricter with regard to surrebuttal. Refusal to allow surrebuttal testimony is only considered reversible error on the rarest of occasions. See the following cases:

The decision whether rebuttal evidence should be admitted is within the sound discretion of the trial court" and "the discretion of the trial court in allowing surrebuttal testimony is even greater." See State v. Steelman, 120 Ariz. 301, 319, 585 P.2d 1213, 1231 (1978).

Evidence that is merely cumulative is generally held inadmissible when proferred as surrebuttal testimony. See State v. Jensen,153 Ariz. 171, 179, 735 P.2d 781, 789 (1987).

And finding that it was reversible error to exclude surrebuttal expert (which may be applicable here):

State v. Talmadge, 196 Ariz. 436, 999 P.2d 192 (2000).

 

[SusieD]

The fact that the DT wants to bring in another psychological witness seems to indicate that they know that the testimony of RS and ALV was flawed. Dr. DeMarte shot their assertions out of the water, so the DT needs another expert witness to try to right their sinking ship. Unfortunately, JSS will allow the DT to prolong the trial because she doesn't want there to be anything left to the chance of an appeal. uke:

Unless this guy is equally as horrible as a witness as RS & ALV, and he's willing to testify Jodi was some sort of battered woman, I think they would have gone to him in the first place.

Since there is no indication he ever met Jodi, much less evaluated her, I think his role is to rebut Dr D on procedural things like testing, interpretation, number of hours an evaluator should spend with the defendant, etc. I do not think he will testify anything about Jodi herself.

It would take weeks for him to do an eval and write a report. The DT doesn't get to keep bringing on a string of new witnesses because their earlier ones sucked.

 

[hilldeccaside]

So if this Dr Geffner rebut the BPD diagnosis, that doesn't really change much... Really, Dr Samuels even diagnosed her with personality disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), sooo they can't say she has no personality disorder and that all her issues are a result of PTSD or DV right? Or else they'd be calling Dr Samuels diagnoses incorrect...I really would like to know what Dr Geffner would bring to the table and none of his reports or existence has even been mentioned; would that mean he never interviewed her or evaluated her? Hmmm.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

Wouldn't this Dr. have to spend some time evaluating her first? Or are they just going to bring him in to explain BPD in a way that makes it seem as if she is harmless?

 

[garthmax]

But he never evaluated JA..........WTH?

Well, than the PT should be able to have the Dr. that spoke on Nancy Grace.No one wants to hear another expert speak, especially if they have not even spoken to JA. Heck, I could get up and express my opinion from reading books and magazines. The Judge has to put a stop to this at some point. The defense is absolutely crazy if they go to sur-rebuttal. And now the DT wants manslaughter. Does the DT understand the jury does have a brain.The jury will not like it. They are done, over, finished.

 

[Arabian Girl]

Murder 1 can be either premeditated OR felony murder.

May come down to felony murder vs manslaughter (passion defense). All one has to believe is Jodi committed a felony (such as SHOOTING) and if TA died related to this felony (STABBING) it could be felony murder.

So if there's 6 for premed and 6 for felony murder that's MURDER ONE.

Remember the Judge already agreed to let felony murder in the instructions, in case the evidence showed Jodi committed a felony while there that wasn't killing.

JM successfully argued it was Breaking and Entering. He did let her in but would have revoked that when she started stabbing. Brilliant move!!

 

[Whack A Mole]

Bringing this over from the last thread because the doors closed and I didn't see an answer. I can't remember how to bring a quote over from another thread so I have to do it a little differently.

--------------
Originally Posted by SunDawnn
I'm quite sure I read--- the autopsy indicated he hadn't ejaculated prior to his death. But I've read so much, I'm not certain if that was someone's opinion or if it was indeed noted by the coroner.


Personally I don't believe for a minute he got off with Jodi that day.
Not. At. All.

The entire bed scene looked staged. Who keeps a bottle of KY on the bed when there were two night stands right there?
Nope.
This chick contrived this entire killing. From the moment she stole the gun until she straddled Ryan. It was ALL pre-planned and premeditated.
----------------------

BBM

I'm trying to catch so I apologize if this has already been addressed - but is this true? I don't recall hearing this before. TIA.

I've read a lot of autopsy reports and I've never seen the level, or amount of sperm that remains in a body. It's not related to the death, so I've never seen it "looked at" so to speak.

 

[Davia18]

If I understand correctly, heat of passion doesn't mean self defense. So the DT now realizes their self defense claim can not stand and change to heat of passion?

When that doesn't fly either then maybe they will change it to insanity or perhaps back to the ninja's or maybe go for she wasn't even there.
Defense is making a mockery of this court and the justice system and IMO the jury is not pleased with all the BS. JMO of course

 

[SweetT]

I don't think it's Travis and I'm not so sure the pic with the KY is an alive Travis....his arm is blocking the right side of his head.

I'm not so sure that is Travis' penis either...it appears to me that it could possibly be uncircumcised.

 

[gauntlet]

If anyone wants to check a link and there aren't sure about it, go to this website and copy the address into that. When I was a kid, I was warned about talking to strangers. Now it's unknown URLS https://safeweb.norton.com/

 

[ilovewings]

It is offensive to me that the defense has made a mockery of the justive system and the bashing of Travis.

The will stop at nothing they seem to have no couth, morals or values.
Of course all JMO.

We have lost sight of justice for Travis and turned this into a circus, half of what has went on should not have been allowed again JMO.

Between the defense and their witnesses it is upsetting to me what justice has become.

The defense duo are amoral- they are an embarrassment to the profession of law. Our court system is in tatters and needs an overhaul. I wonder if another judge would have allowed what this judge has allowed into the trial. For example, the things that LaViolette said about Travis. heresay.