ChinaBlue
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 0
ugghh,, and drag it on and on,, seems like a cut and dry case to me, it's the defense with their strategy, having all these things let in to court --jodi with her detailed life story,the endless pornographic testimony, the painfully detailed recollections of her loser life, the blame the victim untrue allegations of abuse and pedophilia by travis, It;s infuriating, that she gets special treatment, i never heard of a murder trial go on so long, for a non celebrity with a public defender, It's the defense's fault, not only with the interruptions , but how Wilmott and Nurmi use soooo much time re-stating things that were already said, her re-directs and re-cross are a replay of things she already said previously. Also, she brings up the most minute details in the effort to poke holes in any pros. witness testimony, that Juan Martinez is forced to counter ,,, such as the Dr's CV, the tests, etc., keeps losing the momentum of the real trial here, and forcing JM to clear up the points that JW brought up which have no use except to waste time, waste time, hoping to drag things out and confuse the jury. I am a little worried this has gone on too long, and with the jury questions, it seems like they are having a hard time trying to sort this all out, as if they have lost the point of the whole trial... i dont know, i was expecting more of a evidence case, anytime they would try to go into another smoke and mirror effect, i expected JM to basically show the evidence of the murder rather than waste time disproving the defense's testimony, It's like the defense team is has the ball, offense, and prosecutor is playing defense . Maddening.
Yesss...agreed with everything. I think that's the whole strategy for the defense...just pound it into their heads so all their thoughts get convuluted (sp.?). Also, I guess it's good there were so many question for LaViolette, but after Jodi and then Samuels, if I were a juror I would pretty much take everything else the defense gave me and just disregard it (know they're not supposed to do that, but heck, they're human!). So I was a little worried by the amount of questions for LaViolette, though good thing they were mosly bad for the defense.
I fully expect that JM will bring back and wrap up the basics of this case with his closing argument, ie., the planning and plotting that lead to the death of TA, as well as the butchering aspect itself and not all the psycho-babble that follows.