trial day 34: the defense continues it's case in chief #98

[oceanblueeyes]

The heat is Juan!

The Heat Is Juan ( A Juantra) - YouTube

Wow! Thanks!

What a great song to wake up to and boy it got my motor running for sure!:great:

Bring the HEAT ON Mr. Juanderful!

 

[TartLemon]

Because people are very passionate in their beliefs. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or stupid? :waitasec:

:dunno:

I like different POVs. Keeps the blinders off. There's been other cases I've disagreed with the majority. Kind of tough to navigate some sites with a different opinion.

 

[Softail]

Softail, wasn't there some talk about malt vinegar awhile back? It seems to be missing from your condiments lineup. :highfive:

:doh:

I fixed it! Whoosh, thanks for the reminder! :giggle:

 

[Karmady]

The State requested the originals so that the COULD be examined, JA refused.

Just to be clear, JA could have produced the originals if she had them and felt so strongly that they would help her case. If JA knew the letters to be genuine, she would have handed them over immediately.

Instead, she wanted the 'copies' that she received 'somehow' from 'someone' (both of which she refused to disclose) to be admitted into evidence anyway, even though it seems pretty clear that they didn't indicate any evidence of abuse.

She first mentioned these letters within days of her 2010 change in defenses.

Guess JA knew they weren't genuine, or didn't find them important enough to produce if they were. Ball is/was in her court on this. Enough said.

As I understand it, based on reading the brief on the document site, Jodi received electronic copies of the documents via e-mail. She didn't "refuse" to produce originals in her possession, she didn't have them. It was the electronic copies only that were presented to the experts. Imo, either they were forged by MM and sent to her or they were actual letters that she gave to MM to hold. However, they were excluded only because the experts only had electronic copies. The issues pertaining to MM were never resolved for whatever reason. Technical distinction in the minds of most, I'm sure. But that's the way my brain works, so it matters to me.

I'm sure the letters are the reason for Juan's warnings to the defense about their witness list. He knew were the originals were -- whether they were authentic or not.

 

[katiewonders]

I love that video!!!! I wonder if Juan Martinez knows how much of a Fan base he really has

Wow! :rocker: So creative, I loved it, too - even though it was a plug for HLN's After Dark. :facepalm: This is a generalization, but I think it applies to all of us here: we might like/love/hate/or care nothing for the prosecutor, but we Love the pursuit of Justice for victims...for Travis. That's why I'm such a Juan fan, and I think this video is great! Hope someone points it out to him. BBM :twocents:

 

[kwmred]

The heat is Juan!

The Heat Is Juan ( A Juantra) - YouTube

Wonderful! Great way to start the day

 

[carnnell]

My God.

(((paperwing & carnnell)))

It infuriates me that Arias is claiming abuse by TA. When I read and hear stories from you and carnnell and others it is clear that she is making a complete mockery of women who, like yourselves, have been through hell.

God Bless you and all who go through this.

Thank you your support for paperwing and I. I am upset what Arias; yet I know she is a psychopath so she what she is.

Who infuriates me to the ends of the earth is Samuel making a mockery of women and men who have been stalked as well both sexes who have been abused developing PTSS and/or PTSD using that Dx with Arias knowing she has lied over and over even on the test. Furthermore, he is beginning to lie to work his story (square peg shoving it into a round hole) to fit the DT, Arias and her family this abuse PTSD stuff. :furious::furious:

JMHO

 

[G&AMom]

Good morning everyone! I see the conversation has been around stalking. I don't know if one can classify this as 'stalking' but the boy who lives with me, Mike, has a girlfriend he's had for a couple of years now. Recently, I've been hearing stories about how she drives by my house at all hours just to check to make sure Mike is home. It's gotten to the point that if he goes anywhere without her (with his friends), he leaves his truck in front of my home so she thinks he is home. One night I woke up (not sure of the time) and saw light coming in my window, I looked out and she was parked, lights on, in front of my house (I live in a cul-de-sac and when you pull up to my house on the street you pull in front end towards the house), just sitting there. I don't know who was in the car, it was 'her' truck but Mike may have been in there talking to her.

One morning she sat at the bottom of my street waiting for me to leave for work. Once I left she drove up to the house, parked, and rang the bell for 15 straight minutes (my son called and told me...he said he didn't want to answer the door).

Mike is still dating her so I don't know if I would classify this behavior as stalking but dang...it sure is creepy at times!

Oh...and she is not welcome in my home, she's said some pretty off-color things about me (even though she's never met me) because I require Mike to pay a very minimal 'rent' ($40 per week) and he didn't pay one week and she said I was a lying b**ch, and since then has voiced her dislike of me to Mike (who then told my sons). What she fails to realize that had I not opened my home to Mike he would have had to move across the state, basically ending their relationship as they knew it.

Sorry for the O/T. I look forward to the juror's questions today. So far they have been spot on with their questions. I hope there is one today that says "You didn't do your job properly, you formed an opinion based on a Time magazine article, you failed to write an addendum to your report with information that was germane to this case, what exactly qualifies you to testify here?" or something to that effect!

I think Mike needs to check out this case in detail. Just sayin'.

 

[katiewonders]

I like different POVs. Keeps the blinders off. There's been other cases I've disagreed with the majority. Kind of tough to navigate some sites with a different opinion.

That's why I like it here at WS. :seeya:

 

[carnnell]

Good morning everyone! I see the conversation has been around stalking. I don't know if one can classify this as 'stalking' but the boy who lives with me, Mike, has a girlfriend he's had for a couple of years now. Recently, I've been hearing stories about how she drives by my house at all hours just to check to make sure Mike is home. It's gotten to the point that if he goes anywhere without her (with his friends), he leaves his truck in front of my home so she thinks he is home. One night I woke up (not sure of the time) and saw light coming in my window, I looked out and she was parked, lights on, in front of my house (I live in a cul-de-sac and when you pull up to my house on the street you pull in front end towards the house), just sitting there. I don't know who was in the car, it was 'her' truck but Mike may have been in there talking to her.

One morning she sat at the bottom of my street waiting for me to leave for work. Once I left she drove up to the house, parked, and rang the bell for 15 straight minutes (my son called and told me...he said he didn't want to answer the door).

Mike is still dating her so I don't know if I would classify this behavior as stalking but dang...it sure is creepy at times!

Oh...and she is not welcome in my home, she's said some pretty off-color things about me (even though she's never met me) because I require Mike to pay a very minimal 'rent' ($40 per week) and he didn't pay one week and she said I was a lying b**ch, and since then has voiced her dislike of me to Mike (who then told my sons). What she fails to realize that had I not opened my home to Mike he would have had to move across the state, basically ending their relationship as they knew it.

Sorry for the O/T. I look forward to the juror's questions today. So far they have been spot on with their questions. I hope there is one today that says "You didn't do your job properly, you formed an opinion based on a Time magazine article, you failed to write an addendum to your report with information that was germane to this case, what exactly qualifies you to testify here?" or something to that effect!

Sounds like stalking behavior to me. I hope you all document, take pictures or even webcam her outside and take it to the police. Document document document.

She can become dangerous.

Been there!!

 

[rose222]

BBM=by me.

Rose I absolutely agree with you. That one picture does show that he was scared and looks as though he may have had tears starting. My heart just breaks for him-I don't believe for one second how the DT is protraying TA. I believe TA was a good hearted person that was truly blinded by JA and when he realized how she truly was/is....it was too late. Justice will be served-I'm a firm believer. I'm very passionate about this case. I haven't said anything but my daughter's brother was murdered back in 2011 and they are having his trial this week and next week. When he was killed......he was absolutely defenseless..........he was asleep!!!!!!

I'm sorry to hear that Gypseagirl. Prayers for your family.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

I used to believe that, too, but the Casey Anthony trial was so disappointing (understatement of the year). Then, I would hear the attorneys say in interviews that they don't even make guesses on how a jury will decide.

I don't listen to the TH's anymore, particularly on JVM. I tune into the shows that Beth Karas is on and I only listen to her, it's on in the background, but unless I hear her name or hear her voice, I pay no attention. The back and forth and talking over each other is ridiculous and something I have no patience for. I'm not worried at all. JM knows more about this case than any of us or anyone on television. He pops up with new things all the time that we've never heard a word about. I'm sure he'll put a lot of minds at ease after the rebuttal.

I know some are worried because of the CA verdict, but that's a whole other case and there's much more evidence here. I had a weird feeling throughout the entire CA trial. I knew she was guilty and if I had been on that jury it would have been hung because I could have never ever voted for an acquittal, but I always had a feeling that she was gonna get away with it or get manslaughter and be out in a few years. I don't get that feeling at all with this case. I'm confident these jurors have the common sense needed to find her guilty of murder 1. When you add in the staged burglary at her grandparent's to acquire the gun, the gas cans, her stalking behavior (I know not all of it has come out, but some has and Lisa A was even asked about it during jury questions so they know and are thinking about it), cleaning up, putting the camera in the wash, putting up the doggy gate, locking the bedroom door, locking the front door, leaving the voice mail, sending the text about the check, sending the email, etc., there's no other reasonable explanation. :twocents:

 

[Nosey Parker]

I posted the ethics the other day for psychologist and according to that he did nothing wrong. It's too late to find it again. It said that the rules are so vague that the board has a hard time determining what's ethical and what's not. I'm sure after his last ordeal with the dentist, he learned what he could do and not do.

Sounds like that board needs to revisit their rules then.

Samuels filled in the PTSD test answer paper himself, from a yellow sheet that we are to trust Arias scribbled her answers on, and that he transcribed verbatim. He then had the audacity to present that to the court as evidence. If he was irresponsible enough to attend the jail without the necessary paperwork, why did he not defer to the next day or so and bring the answer sheet with him then?

I'm not even going to comment on the fact all his findings were based on a pack of lies.

He has inserted himself into her defence in a proactive manner, which is not his role as an evaluator. It was his professional responsibility to evaluate Arias impartially, using current and acceptable techniques; present his findings to the defence; and then later to the court.

To say his work and presentation on the stand is shoddy is an understatement. IMO


Good morning everyone! :seeya: I'm feeling a little testy about this poor rendition of an 'expert witness'. I hope the jury questions rip him apart today.

 

[TexasGirlie]

Well thanks to the lack of IS this morning, my morning schedule is all "scrambled"!! :lol: Typically I take my daughter to school, come back home & watch IS as I get ready, go to the gym, then back home for lunch & watch the beginning of the day's trial.

All this change is giving me fognesia!!! :lol:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No more Insession??!! I turned it on for a recap of yesterday and it is not there!!! What is going on.. Is that it????

Yes, I am freaking out..

 

[BritsKate]

Good morning everyone! I see the conversation has been around stalking. I don't know if one can classify this as 'stalking' but the boy who lives with me, Mike, has a girlfriend he's had for a couple of years now. Recently, I've been hearing stories about how she drives by my house at all hours just to check to make sure Mike is home. It's gotten to the point that if he goes anywhere without her (with his friends), he leaves his truck in front of my home so she thinks he is home. One night I woke up (not sure of the time) and saw light coming in my window, I looked out and she was parked, lights on, in front of my house (I live in a cul-de-sac and when you pull up to my house on the street you pull in front end towards the house), just sitting there. I don't know who was in the car, it was 'her' truck but Mike may have been in there talking to her.

One morning she sat at the bottom of my street waiting for me to leave for work. Once I left she drove up to the house, parked, and rang the bell for 15 straight minutes (my son called and told me...he said he didn't want to answer the door).

Mike is still dating her so I don't know if I would classify this behavior as stalking but dang...it sure is creepy at times!

Oh...and she is not welcome in my home, she's said some pretty off-color things about me (even though she's never met me) because I require Mike to pay a very minimal 'rent' ($40 per week) and he didn't pay one week and she said I was a lying b**ch, and since then has voiced her dislike of me to Mike (who then told my sons). What she fails to realize that had I not opened my home to Mike he would have had to move across the state, basically ending their relationship as they knew it.

Sorry for the O/T. I look forward to the juror's questions today. So far they have been spot on with their questions. I hope there is one today that says "You didn't do your job properly, you formed an opinion based on a Time magazine article, you failed to write an addendum to your report with information that was germane to this case, what exactly qualifies you to testify here?" or something to that effect!

Whether he's dating her or not, that is most definitely stalking behavior. And any attempt to control or subjugate another human being is abusive itself. Stalking is a tool used to control the behaviors, actions, and reactions of a person.

Likely there are other abusive behaviors too. But, unfortunately, in all my experience until someone is no longer willing to live in those conditions there's very little onlookers can do.

Since you're the homeowner I think you'd be well within your rights to seek a restraining order should you choose or need to go that route - but obviously that could damage your relationship with him too.

Just food for thought should you find the need, Candy. :hug:

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

I think Mike needs to check out this case in detail. Just sayin'.

Sounds like stalking behavior to me. I hope you all document, take pictures or even webcam her outside and take it to the police. Document document document.

She can become dangerous.

Been there!!

Hmmmm, thanks guys! I think I will start documenting just in case!

ETA: Thanks BritsKate...I'm going to start paying much closer attention!

 

[STEADFAST]

No more Insession??!! I turned it on for a recap of yesterday and it is not there!!! What is going on.. Is that it????

Yes, I am freaking out..

The really bad thing is that this juvenile show that's on is more interesting than the trial itself was yesterday.

 

[LaneGirl]

Sounds like that board needs to revisit their rules then.

Samuels filled in the PTSD test answer paper himself, from a yellow sheet that we are to trust Arias scribbled her answers on, and that he transcribed verbatim. He then had the audacity to present that to the court as evidence. If he was irresponsible enough to attend the jail without the necessary paperwork, why did he not defer to the next day or so and bring the answer sheet with him then?

I'm not even going to comment on the fact all his findings were based on a pack of lies.

He has inserted himself into her defence in a proactive manner, which is not his role as an evaluator. It was his professional responsibility to evaluate Arias impartially, using current and acceptable techniques; present his findings to the defence; and then later to the court.

To say his work and presentation on the stand is shoddy is an understatement. IMO


Good morning everyone! :seeya: I'm feeling a little testy about this poor rendition of an 'expert witness'. I hope the jury questions rip him apart today.

Don't forget he also made a "mistake" and left of 2 criteria for PTST along with wrote in his notes that JA told him that she was tied by her hands AND feet but that was just him writing fast.

 

[Karmady]

NCAA tip-off today

woot!