These are the remaining transcripts for the last portion of day 42 (afternoon session).
I don't want to mess up the chronology of the thread, but I missed the right time to post those in the correct place.
Chronologically, those transcripts belong between post #1188 and #1189 of this thread (between wenwe4's post that ends with 'afternoon recess' and the post with the trial clips of day 42).
I hope I'm not messing up the chronology too badly, maybe the mods can move single posts.
--------------
Day 42; afternoon session after afternoon recess:
jm: exibit 448, we were talking about the message there, if we turn the page we see the same message
alv:yes
jm: you don't know how that got there
alv: no
jm: you are biased in favour of the defendant
alv: I believe the evidence in favour of defendant, bias not right word
jm: ye,s it is the right word
remember that the first thing you did when meeting ja was apologizing to her bc you read some items in relation to this case and already formed an opinion, right
alv: no
jm: fair to say that apologizing seems like there is sympathy on your behalf
alv: apology for reading their most private thoughts is a way to establish rapport, wanted her to be able to talk to me
jm: meant the apology
alv: of course I meant it
jm: indicates you already formed an opinion
objection overruled
alv: no
jm: no need to apologize
alv: from my perspective yes
jm: felt badly for her?
alv: felt badly for invading her most private thoughts, like reading my daughter's diary, I would apologize for that. did apologize because I meant it, and b/c it's a way for her to trust me
jm: apology that you extend to all your clients?
alv: no, it isn't
objection overruled
alv: I apologized to ja for reading her private things
jm: do you apologize to your clients when they come in
alv: no, I don't know anything about them when they come
jm: yes or no
alv: not a complete answer, yes or no not complete answer
jm: so you can't answer
alv: I don't know their stories, have no reason to apologize
jm: knowing you read those thoughts, you felt so badly that you had to apologize
alv: I felt badly
jm: did that affect the way you viewed the defendant
alv: no, it means I apologized, not that I'm
I've apologized when I was misunderstood but that doesn't change the way I work with clients
jm: no need to apologize if you were just assessing her
alv: my gut said I needed to apologize
jm: where is it in the rules that you have to apologize first thing?
objection overruled
alv: not anywhere in the rules
jm: you did in this case, though
alv: I felt the need to do it
jm: because you felt sorry for her?
alv: because I invaded spaces most people don't invade, to establish rapport, did not bias because I had made no decision about this case
jm: other ways to build rapport
alv: many ways
jm: other way is to buy books and magazines, right? way to build rapport?
alv: done it for other people
jm: not what I asked you
alv: you're mischaracterizing what I do
jm: true that you bought books for her?
alv: yes
jm: true that in order to build rapport, you could have done other things than to apologize
alv: many things one could do
jm: could you build rapport another way?
alv: I suppose
jm: didn't you say humour is a way?
alv: would have been inappropriate, counterintuitive if I had told a joke
jm: didn't say a joke, said humour
alv: I get to decide how I build rapport
jm: why is it that you felt so strongly that you felt the need to coddle her by giving her books and apologizing
objection sustained
jm: why is it that you felt the need to do that?
objection overruled
alv: want a complete answer?
jm: I want an answer to my question? why need to do that when you could have built rapport another way
alv: saw it as a respectful way, it's important for people to see that you respect them regardless of the accusation, basic to a human being, chose that way to do it, it's not something I planned, it happened when I was there. when I bought the book I was on the case for a year and a half, done that for other clients because jail is boring, done it with people I don't know, it's part of what I do, see it as preventative
jm: how many other times have you testified at trial in a criminal case?
alv: (counts slowly): not certain, testified 18 times altogether other than this trial, some family cases, less than ten criminal cases
jm: in those ten cases, did you apologize to everyone of those defendands when you went to see them
alv: didn't read their private
different way to approach these things, I reduced my fees in some cases, it's the way I work, no one-size-fits-all approach, look at the person I'm dealing with
jm: are you done?
alv: I'm done
jm: how many of those people did you apologize to on the first meeting
objection overruled
alv: don't know, first case was 1984, don't know. unlikely due to different circumstances
jm: so different case where you could have shown respect a different way
alv: seemed like a good way in this case to show respect in the beginning by apologizing
jm: but there are different way of showing it, could have sat across from her and talk in respectful way, right?
alv: I did
jm: showed her you're respectful, right?
alv: yes
jm: 90% of conversation is nonverbal, right?
alv: yes
jm: if you really wanted to show her respect, if 90% is nonverbal, you didn't have to say anything at all
objection overruled
alv: untrue
jm: so you felt that those were the only exceptions to 90% rule
alv: no, that's not true
alv: 90% you start by someone with talking before you can assess body language
jm: spent 44 hour on this case, time to asses body language
alv: not in 5 minutes
jm: noone forced you to apologize first 5 minutes
alv: no
jm: you told me it was in the first 5 minutes
alv: don't know if in first 5 minutes, did it relatively soon, had no prior basis for communications, did I have to make apology? you could say no, I say it was good and respectful thing to do, you can argue but it was the right decision to me
jm: how long was the first meeting?
alv: 8 hours
jm: you could have through your body language after maybe 1-2 hours conveyed to her through nonverbal conversation that you're respectful, didn't have to immediately apologize
alv: no
jm: could have waited, see if she was going to trust you
alv: why is this an issue?
jm: judge, she's non-responsive
sustained
jm: it was not necessary to apologize right away because you spend 8 hours with her
alv: felt that it was necessary
jm: I understand but you were not compelled
objection sustained
