trial day 34: the defense continues its case in chief #97

[katiedid2]

http://www.willmottlaw.com/attorneys.html
Is this Jennifer wilmott
I think her husband is an atty

 

[pamalamadingdong]

HLN keeps asking "but is the defense losing the jury?" Ya think??? They were lost lch ong ago, IMO.

You can only try to shove a square peg into a round hole for so long before everyone around you shuts down. It has been 34 days now.

Besides, they already went over all of this crap days ago. Waste. Huge waste.

THey also keep saying their "bold accusation" is that jodi is not showing remorse.

 

[Observer in AZ]

:great:
Will & Grace Karen and her color pills - YouTube

My MOST FAVE Karen quote: Vodka is a morning beverage when mixed with Orange Juice:floorlaugh:

 

[mobius99]

I can't help but notice what odd clothing choices Ms Willmot and the MS continue to make. The lavender color is so off and the pink dress with the big bow on the side seem so inappropriate in a court. I know it sounds petty but IMO it is not.

A person makes a judgement and forms an opinion about another person in what, 5-7 seconds?

If I were consulting, I would make sure the Defense was dressed in appropriate dark suits, no flashy jewelry or distracting fashion choices; something appropriately somber for a death penalty trail.

I recall from the CA case that LDB was always professionally dressed in dark suit. Nothing to distract from her presentation in court.

I have (personally) formed an impression that Willmott is not a very good attorney. On a certain level, her poor choice of clothing is confirming that I am right. I am distracted by her ill-fitting fitting suit; the color reads "too young and not serious", srsly, was the suit painted on her; and I can see her her bra lines digging into her back.

So much wrong on so many levels.

This forms a very bad impression on me, on top of I already think she is not a good attorney. If I don't like how she presents and dresses how can she make me like her client?

 

[raisincharlie]

ITA. I don't think that PTSD test (and therefore the diagnosis) should have been allowed in, as Samuels actually completed the questions himself. Who knows what he did in the 'translation'. Imagine if the prosecution did something like that? Out the window to screams of mistrial!

I will be a bit surprised if Nurmi doesn't come in after this break asking for a mistrial because Ms. DeMarte shared the raw data with JM.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

ITA
also wonder what the Juror(s) think IF their question is Not asked :waitasec: did/does the Judge explain the reasons why..

Ohh reminds me to ask ya'll.. (any WS'r)
What answer was given to what the word '*advertiser censored*' meant?
somehow missed it :giggle:

That was one of the tension breaking moments in court. Judge S. hoped she'd be able to not smile or laugh out loud when she asked Jodi. We all had the image of her bursting out laughing and it felt good.

 

[katiedid2]

Bingo.
I had to turn off the stream today .. CANNOT listen to Sam the Sham & Willy for yet another day of same questioning.
(plus the new lies introduced).
Enough to drive me batty.
Reading great commentary here only for today.
I lasted 10 minutes of those two ... And turned off the live stream.

What a bunch of baloney.
Hope the jury feels the same!

You can crush it up and put it in a big punch bowl
Pass the cups around

 

[mck16]

Couldn't they just give this 'stuff' to the jury and let them read it instead of going over it ad nauseam? Nuts. jmo

 

[Softail]

Does any one think this Dr. will use his notes to answer juror questions?

:nono: He won't be able to find them.

 

[Rosemary Pierce]

JW said the name of Juan's expert.....does anyone know it?

ETA>>>I see it up thread

 

[pamalamadingdong]

What time did they go to recess??? I might be able to get my shower in while they're out!! Someone? Anyone??

Wild about trial says court resumes at 3:45 PST.

 

[Renee110]

I was reading the FB page The State vs Jodi Arias, and someone said "REMEMBER none of this testimony goes to the jury when they go back to chambers to decide their vote...NONE

Is it true?

 

[luvtenniss]

The question asked about assault by a STRANGER.

Right, but then JW was trying to parallel it with what JA says is the true story - her killing Travis. She repeated all the same questions, including fearing harm to someone else.

 

[Bada Bing]

I'm pretty sure from Juan's cross that answer will be an eye opening YES.

Socios know how to take the MMPI. A socio in my family needed to take that test for the police force and passed with flying colors. I got a copy of that test afterwards from someone. There are 500 questions.
One question was 'most couples have arguments.' I answered yes and my socio relative said...no one wants to hear that crap, you have to answer no.
lol

 

[Schuby]

That was one of the tension breaking moments in court. Judge S. hoped she'd be able to not smile or laugh out loud when she asked Jodi. We all had the image of her bursting out laughing and it felt good.

That's kind of cool...makes me like her more.

 

[Kamille]

I wonder if the State had their experts interview Jodi?

Very good question and if not...why not? I thought that was par for the course. If the defense had an "expert" evaluating her I thought the prosecution could do the same?

 

[katydid23]

I think they are going to imply that she had PTSD from events that occured before June 4th and that Travis threatened her with the knife, causing her to 'flash back' (due to PTSD) to her being assaulted with a knife, at the age of twelve. She then went into 'fight or flight' and went into fognesia while defending herself.

I think they are going to try that too. But if she had PTSD from earlier incidents then why did she have such a good memory during all of that time?

 

[prima.facie]

I can't help but notice what odd clothing choices Ms Willmot and the MS continue to make. The lavender color is so off and the pink dress with the big bow on the side seem so inappropriate in a court. I know it sounds petty but IMO it is not.

A person makes a judgement and forms an opinion about another person in what, 5-7 seconds?

If I were consulting, I would make sure the Defense was dressed in appropriate dark suits, no flashy jewelry or distracting fashion choices; something appropriately somber for a death penalty trail.

I recall from the CA case that LDB was always professionally dressed in dark suit. Nothing to distract from her presentation in court.

I have (personally) formed an impression that Willmott is not a very good attorney. On a certain level, her poor choice of clothing is confirming that I am right. I am distracted by her ill-fitting fitting suit; the color reads "too young and not serious", srsly, was the suit painted on her; and I can see her her bra lines digging into her back.

So much wrong on so many levels.

This forms a very bad impression on me, on top of I already think she is not a good attorney. If I don't like how she presents and dresses how can she make me like her client?

i think they, like the today show morning crew, were celebrating the first day of spring by wearing happy spring colors. lol

but i agree with you!

 

[Sassynic]

Another question that I can't get right in my head is the big deal about PTSD and how it relates to her killing Travis. I would think that they would need to explore why she killed him in the first place as opposed to worrying about what she suffered after killing him. Maybe I am reading it wrong but it sure makes you wonder.

I snipped your post to the question I think I can answer based on my observation...

IMO, they are going over her "PTSD" to explain to the jury why she cannot recall stabbing Travis even though she can recall minute details from years before. The DT does not want the jury to think her fog is another one of her lies. (Which we all know it is, but they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't at least explore the possibility of a psychological reason)

 

[pufnstuf]

I will be a bit surprised if Nurmi doesn't come in after this break asking for a mistrial because Ms. DeMarte shared the raw data with JM.

That was just bluff and bluster by the defense and Samuels. Of course the psychologists share data. It's called discovery. HIPAA laws don't exactly apply in forensic analyses for court purposes.

For Wilmott to even imply that there's some violation there is just defense hocus pocus.