a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #7

[Spyglass]

Or maybe she sees what she's paid to see.

INVOICE

Daily glasses retrieval $500

Plus cost of:
Judge's time, judicial staff time, prosecution time, DT time, jury's time, and on and on.

(Wonder how much accumulated time lost by all trial watchers.)

Whoa.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Oh My!!
I was just thinking last night, did AVL "Imprint" on JA !!
Afterall, they did spend 44 hours together!

Dang! I meant for this to be quoted with the chart that was put up with JA and AVL and symantics!

I bet that; and I bet JA had her videos and self made materials in her cell to study all these years and the ever changing cameleon picked it up by osmosis!

 

[Tsunvirtual]

What was the ex parte hearing about yesterday? Does anyone know?

 

[Soulsad]

:welcome5::welcome6::Welcome1::welcome3::wagon::welcome: I'm sorry it's late.

Thank you all for such a warm welcome! So nice to be in the company of you all, who like myself have become so invested in this trial! CANNOT wait for court today...cliff hanger yesterday as JM is going to prove JA is stalked using her own expert witness to do so!

 

[polleypockets]

That is by design. And sick. And I blame Maria DeLaRosa who should know better but has her own exhibitionism going on imo.

is this normal behavior for a mit specialist to act this way and be so inserted in the trial?? i don't ever remember seeing any thing like this b4

 

[Elleth]

Didn't you mean FOGetful?

I just bought a fog machine for a photo shoot I have coming up in a few weeks. I will never be able to use it without thinking about fognesia and this trial. :noooo:

{ETA}...I think I'll make a sticker to put on it that says..."Well, it's my fog machine" :floorlaugh:

 

[ForensicFemme]

Live ! Still no glasses brought with AL to the stand !

 

[A_News_Junkie]

BBM

I've seen a lot more of that lately from the jurors. Thanks for posting, very informative.

With your added nickname of Daisy (from the Bed Bath and Beyond story!) I dolled you up a little for fun! LOL

 

[~Lyric~]

Gasp!
Nooooooo! Not my nick, nooooo! Not between those two names!

Actually I think Jodi simply has a very similar argumentative style, and has had it for a while. Super duper passive aggressive style. I recall that after Juan got her to kind of really break down and cry ("where you crying when you stabbed him ma'am"), and she came back to the stand, she was very sullen, was trying to shun Juan, but being as obtuse and difficult as ever with her answers.

At the time, I thought of the stories of TA getting extremely frustrated with her and acting out physically, and had sympathy for him. I have no doubt she can be utterly infuriating in an argument. As, I am sure, can ALV>

Ohhh No!! I never intentionally on purpose was using your nick!
My very first post here was about what I thought JA was doing through her whole life.
Just as with her mother's spoon. I have a feeling that JA heard stories her whole life, maybe even stories from TA about his grandmother stories, of "back in my day" .. and incorporating them into her defense. I believe she is cunningly perceptive and using everything she has soaked up to use in her life. :facepalm:

 

[Hatfield]

I agree that ALV should be admonished for that and severely! I get that JS doesn't want a mistrial or an appeal, but the latitude she is giving the defense is outrageous. I find myself speechless.

JMO
I agree and I think it is very dangerous what the judge is doing. There is a danger that she is giving so much latitude that this can backfire and actually give the defense a grounds for appeal or mistrial based solely on allowing too much.

It is hard to describe what I am trying to say. Basically by her trying to be so safe and allowing almost anything from the defense, this could be reasons down the line that something the defense asked for themselves to be admitted really should not have been admitted and then possibly the defense could then use their own requests that were granted to be an excuse to request an appeal. For example, lets suppose the judge allows a bunch of heresay from ALV per their request. Then they may be able to ask for appeal because it was all hearsay that was admitted.

I just have a fear that the defense is purposely trying to derail their own case. It is so important that the judge disallows inadmissable testimony if it is truly inadmissable. There is no reason for the judge to be afraid of anything so long as her judgements are valid. IMO, there is a real danger if the judge allows things when they really should not have been allowed. She cannot let fear of a mistrial or fear of possible appeal drive her decisions and allow anything and everything the defense asks for.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Never before seen pics!!!!!!! LOL
So pretty, I made a close up too!!!!!!!

 

[susan1122]

Yes she did indeed look tired and I'm thinking that part of this is her slow realization that JA totally lied to her as well as the fact that she has been "played" by JW and KN. Remember when she let slip that she had been given and/or seen only certain items of the whole investigation to use in her assessment? (I'm paraphrasing here.) Well, through JM's cross, I think she's beginning to see that perhaps, just perhaps her assessment leaves a lot to be desired - and not necessarily through any fault of her own but because JW and KN tailored the "collateral" information that she saw and now her reputation is going down the toilet due to the DT's sneaky moves. And while I don't like ALV any more than the rest of you, if my supposition is correct - well then I kinda have to feel a tad bit sorry for her.

I have been wondering about this. And would not put it past the defense team. They are playing dirty pool. But Alyce should have done her homework. She absolutely should have looked at both sides to make these determinations. Sloppy at best. Don't even want to consider the worst. :what:

 

[missjocool]

"Imprint"

One thing we do know about AVL and JA being different... AVL claims she is not an expert on orgasms... we know, unfortunately, that JA is such an expert.

 

[susan1122]

JMO
I agree and I think it is very dangerous what the judge is doing. There is a danger that she is giving so much latitude that this can backfire and actually give the defense a grounds for appeal or mistrial based solely on allowing too much.

It is hard to describe what I am trying to say. Basically by her trying to be so safe and allowing almost anything from the defense, this could be reasons down the line that something the defense asked for themselves to be admitted really should not have been admitted and then possibly the defense could then use their own requests that were granted to be an excuse to request an appeal. For example, lets suppose the judge allows a bunch of heresay from ALV per their request. Then they may be able to ask for appeal because it was all hearsay that was admitted.

I just have a fear that the defense is purposely trying to derail their own case. It is so important that the judge disallows inadmissable testimony if it is truly inadmissable. There is no reason for the judge to be afraid of anything so long as her judgements are valid. IMO, there is a real danger if the judge allows things when they really should not have been allowed. She cannot let fear of a mistrial or fear of possible appeal drive her decisions and allow anything and everything the defense asks for.

Yes! This has crossed my mind. The defense team is just sleazy, IMO. I had thought if anyone could be granted a mistrial it should be JM....not that he would. But I can not believe the things the judge is letting slide for the defense....Really?! I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[SassyBrat]

Listen guys I'm feeling the need to make a PSA.

Those of us attending court and posting and the other things we are doing are starting to get bombarded with pm's and requests for info about attending the trial and other things related to our specific knowledge.

We can't keep up with them. When I saw "we" I more than anything mean "me".

I am cleaning out my PM box several times a day. I know I'm missing notes to reply to that could be important out of just pure volume.

I know this is also happening to my "Peanut".

Please please please if you have something to offer, by all means. If you have a question that is immediate and can't be answered any other way, ok.

Please just realize we are juggling MANY things at once and we are also trying to simply watch the trial like everyone else and we are to varying degrees, exhausted. And we can't keep up with the many questions that are coming our way.

I hate to have to post this as I'm not scolding anyone but just offering a plea for assistance.

Also if you don't hear from me after a PM that doesn't have a specific need for a reply it doesn't mean I don't care it just means there is no time to keep up.

Thanks...love you all.

I appreciate all the efforts you and everyone does to keep us in the loop as well as the inside details of what it is like in the courtroom. I also sincerely appreciate the fact that TA's family knows of the support we have for them. Thank you for all you do! :tyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::goodpost:

 

[annmarie62]

I'm wondering about ALV's credentials, and I think that if he wanted, Juan could publically humiliate her on the stand about the points raised on this website by a Ph.D:

"According to her CV, Ms. LaViolette lists four journal articles. Journal articles are typically peer reviewed. Were Ms. LaViolettes’ peer reviewed? Peer reviewed means that usually two to four reviewers, familiar with research in a particular area, carefully evaluate a manuscript, and decide whether or not it is acceptable for publication. Information about the reviewers and the review process, for these articles, could not be obtained. Let’s look at possible reasons why no information could be found."

LINK:

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/

THANK YOU so much for this link; what an excellent analysis of the true nature of ALV's bloated C.V., or resume. The defense team was apparently taken in by her self-promotion but instead, imo, they got taken for a ride! In a capital murder trial, any "expert" should be thoroughly vetted, especially with regard to his or her education and professional standing. Why the defense didn't at least bring in a Ph.D. is a total mystery to me. There is no title of "Dr." in front of her name- no hospital or university affiliations, and no, local adjunct professorships do not count. Therefore, ALV's standing in the academic world is everything, and apparently (just read the link) hers is not at all impressive. She does not create, participate or publish analyses/data/studies to back up anything she says, which is so crucial in the field of psychology. As JM has so skillfully and exactingly revealed, she is merely expressing opinions steeped in bias and "feelings." She is not a stupid person but she just comes across as so dated... like I could easily envision her sipping herbal tea and running a 70s - style "consciousness-raising" seminar/macrame 101 workshop at her local YWCA. And like so many on this thread have noted, she is out of her league when she tries to "handle" JM. Obviously, she is used to surrounding herself with needy women who think she is on a level with Mother Theresa! I tried to listen to that "Snow White" presentation on YouTube but it was so stupid I couldn't listen past 2-3 minutes. Ugh.

 

[Jane Jetson]

The chart they're looking at now, JM and ALV, has an entry "verbal abuse but not psychological abuse." That doesn't make any sense.

That judge is not doing ANYTHING about ALV just yammering on and on - and on - to a simple "yes or no" question. How is that allowed? I guess there's no one over the judge to tell her that's unacceptable?

You gotta ask yourself, why, oh why, would a person who is resposible for making sure there's a fair trial countenance such behavior on ALV's part? :furious:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

someone please make a gif of mikes face reacting to the timeout comment

Here you go! LOL

 

[Suzanna in Arizona]

The chart they're looking at now, JM and ALV, has an entry "verbal abuse but not psychological abuse." That doesn't make any sense.

That judge is not doing ANYTHING about ALV just yammering on and on - and on - to a simple "yes or no" question. How is that allowed? I guess there's no one over the judge to tell her that's unacceptable?

You gotta ask yourself, why, oh why, would a person who is resposible for making sure there's a fair trial countenance such behavior on ALV's part? :furious:

I blame almost this entire back and forth on the weakness of the Judge. She could have put an end to this so-called expert not answering the questions a long time ago. I feel sure that the jury will just toss out her entire testimony. She is a piece of crud IMO. I doubt that she gets any more work after this.

 

[Meetalee]

Yesterday when Juan mentions The Manifesto to ALV , Nurmi pulls his ear and then ALV says she heard about it