A close friend of Travis, who witnessed the effect that Jodi's obsessive behaviour had on Travis.Who is Taylor Searle?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1210/04/ijvm.01.html
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A close friend of Travis, who witnessed the effect that Jodi's obsessive behaviour had on Travis.Who is Taylor Searle?
Just an uneducated guess, which AZlawyer can correct, but most of what he has said would have been hearsay in the other phases. This phase doesn't have the same rules of evidence.
Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.![]()
Was very close friend of TA's and someone he confided in. Travis told him all about what Jodi had been doing and about why he 'told her off' in his last days, IIRC. I remember he asked Travis if he shouldn't be afraid of her and Travis said something like 'no, she's crazy but harmless' (paraphrased)Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.![]()
Sleuths have been commenting on this board for weeks & weeks that Arias is pushing with determination to re-litigate this case, even though it is baldly clear we are dealing with punishment only, The Penalty, not whether she is guilty or not. She has to be capable of understanding the distinction. A moron could. Instead, Arias cannot accept the reality in which she now finds herself living, as a convicted murderer. Simply a big mistake caused by those demon cameras, a jury that betrayed her, counsel who despised her and prosecutorial misconduct. Out come the colored pencils and a fresh piece of paper, do this over and make it right.
Woohoooo Dr DeMarte is coming back!
Sleuths have been commenting on this board for weeks & weeks that Arias is pushing with determination to re-litigate this case, even though it is baldly clear we are dealing with punishment only, The Penalty, not whether she is guilty or not. She has to be capable of understanding the distinction. A moron could. Instead, Arias cannot accept the reality in which she now finds herself living, as a convicted murderer. Simply a big mistake caused by those demon cameras, a jury that betrayed her, counsel who despised her and prosecutorial misconduct. Out come the colored pencils and a fresh piece of paper, do this over and make it right.
That's gonna cause JA's head to spin like the possessed. Oh, wait, she is.
That law of attraction stuff she was into appears to be at play, too, although all that positive thinking didn't prevent her from being convicted.BBM I remember reading some thoughts on cognitive dissonance in my psychology class, way-back-when, and that's what this sounds like to me- a skewed belief that she is "not guilty" and a "convicted murderer".
--------------------------------------------------
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon
That law of attraction stuff she was into appears to be at play, too, although all that positive thinking didn't prevent her from being convicted.:jail: ETA that this definition is also applicable to the convict's supporters, especially the underlined part.
Heavy hitters all...! On what basis could these witnesses possibly be precluded? What did Nurmi dream up to put in the motion?
I imagine the motion went something like this:
"Your honor, the defense would like to file motion to preclude the following witnesses due to the fact that my client feels these people to be
*lifts glasses and squints down at paper he's reading from*
Big Fat MeaniesHATERS."
:drumroll:
Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.![]()
AZ - please tell me that, after five years of being trashed by the killer and her team, Travis will finally have witnesses speaking in his defence.
The only thing creeper than the girl's voice in the Exorcist (movie) is Arias' voice. The softer she speaks the more evil she sounds. I think it's safe to say that
being in the same room as her can be considered a traumatic event. I don't know how those in the courtroom are able to sleep after being a few feet away from evil in one of its most frightening forms. :scared:
Assuming that what the witness was going to say was hearsay, you are correct. I suspect many of our members will gain a new appreciation for the rules of evidence when they see what comes in during the mitigation phase.![]()
What is different about these rules of evidence during mitigation? I wasn't paying much attention to that during the first mitigation phase, having paid most attention to impact statements and allocution.
The difference is that they pretty much don't apply. Anything "relevant" is fair game, and relevance is a pretty low bar.
The difference is that they pretty much don't apply. Anything "relevant" is fair game, and relevance is a pretty low bar.