long weekend break: discuss the latest here #103

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think having nobody to talk to would drive her right over the cliff she seems to be on the edge of already. One can only hope.

I think she would find lots of pen pals, admirers, and probably a guard or two that she could charm.
 
"Why would I kill Travis? I would have had nothing to gain but everything to lose" 48 hour interview while sitting in jail.

Reality had sunk in.
She knows she has really f'd up and she has thrown her life away. Sorry Jodi, no do overs. You did kill him and you have lost everything.
 
Good night everyone and enjoy the testimony tomorrow!

:seeya:
Enjoy? truthfully there is very little of the defense's testimony that I have enjoyed....but I enjoy following here live and seeing everyone's points and reactions lol
 
I think she would find lots of pen pals, admirers, and probably a guard or two that she could charm.
That was assuming she was on death row. If she's only out of her cell for an hour each day, she's going to have to talk fast. lol Poor guards.
 
Just spent a few hours reading the 'timeline' thread. WOW. TY for all the work that has gone into that thread as well as all the others. What I discovered as I went along, all the way from page one was that it didn't take long for me to start rapidly scrolling through JA's testimony, because she can't tell the truth AT ALL. No need to pay one minute's attention to anything she said. Tossed her version of all testimony out like yesterday's trash. I have a feeling that the jury might be doing the same. In for a penny, in for a pound; out for a penny and OUT for a pound. I don't even think she's telling partial truth anymore, not even small things. The truth is in the receipts and the photos, the texts, etc. I cannot wait for the trial to resume tomorrow :)
 
It amazes me how the defense seems to not have any qualms about changing their story as they go along. So, if she says she wanted the gas cans because of cheaper gas outside of California and then when that proves to be a lie they simply change it to because she didn't want to be caught in the desert with no gas how can anybody read that as anything but lying. If I were on a jury and heard these inconsistencies and changes in testimony I would not think twice about discounting anything the defendant says in her testimony.

My question is as to how much money she actually saved (or thought she would save) by buying the gas cans over an additional pennies per gallon cost per gallon of gas...it makes no sense.
 
Is anyone in the world convinced by Dr <mod snip>? I have not heard a single talking head give him any credibility and most of his testimony has been completely ignored or mocked by MSM. It was hard to even follow what on earth he was doing up there, except to make himself appear incompetent and one-eyed. Usually these witnesses make some impact on the people who are watching a trial, this one not so much.

I'm probably one of the only ones who thinks the doctor may have an alternative motive, a man with as much trial experience as an expert witness and 35 years in the field, it makes me skeptical as to why he is making these minimal errors. The man is not an idiot or incompetent or he would not be a respected member of the community.
 
8-09-11
Defense case continues:
Heather Nitterauer is sworn and testifies with the assistance of counsel, Christopher
Winchell.
IT IS ORDERED Heather Nitterauer may be transported to DOC.


The ONLY witness to testify for the DT team regarding the letters, which was started on 8-8. She was transferred to Perryville the next day.

Justice junkie
What did this heather testify to? Thank you in advance.
 
I so look forward to tomorrow. And when is little missy going to get up on that stand and claim that Travis was the bad guy? Who is she? MsIwilltestifytoanythhgI'mpaidforToThankYouVeryMuch.
 
Not only is Samuels stuck in the 70's, he is pushing 70. His CV shows he got his undergrad degree in 1965, which would make him 68-69years old. It also does not list any continuing education within the past ten years.

In his 35 years, he has administered this PSD test 15 times, so it would appear that he does not have extensive experience in this area.

IIRC, at least three times in his testimony he made comments about discontinuing certain areas of practice because they were not lucrative. Most people who have been successful in their careers would be retired by this point in life; I don't sense any dedication on his part and believe he is still working because he cannot afford to retire.

In terms of experience, I'll take quality over quantity.

He's definitely not current on theories. He made some really outrageous claims that were like something out of 70's and 80's pop psychology (her mind created alternate realities, etc). His reference to "instincts" were very odd as well. Not a scientific person imo. I think he's been coasting for about 30 years.
 
Does anyone have a categorical, analytical response to the concept that, ""if she planned and premeditated to kill Travis, then how is it that she knew she would have a window of time undetected in that not one, but TWO roommates would not be a problem, or interfere? What I am saying is that it would be easier to plan a murder of a single guy w/no roommates, but how would she be able to plan , and count on the fact that, the roommates would not be there during the murder , or even during the attempted clean-up of the murder? I am genuinely interessted to know your thoughts on this point.
Thanks.
 
I'm probably one of the only ones who thinks the doctor may have an anterior motive, a man with as much trial experience as an expert witness and 35 years in the field, it makes me skeptical as to why he is making these minimal errors. The man is not an idiot or incompetent or he would not be a respected member of the community.

Not only is he NOT a "respected member of the community". The guy has proven himself already to be an <mod snip>. He has not gained respect from anybody that I know of. He just knows he likes to send Jodi greeting cards and self help books.....
 
I'm probably one of the only ones who thinks the doctor may have an anterior motive, a man with as much trial experience as an expert witness and 35 years in the field, it makes me skeptical as to why he is making these minimal errors. The man is not an idiot or incompetent or he would not be a respected member of the community.

I'm curious as to what ulterior motive you think he might have? If he intentionally screws up to nullify the DT there are huge repercussions for not only the trial for himself as a professional. Care to share? I am very curious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,809
Total visitors
1,940

Forum statistics

Threads
601,357
Messages
18,123,370
Members
231,024
Latest member
australianwebsleuth
Back
Top