trial day 36: the defense continues its case in chief #106

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I don't know if passionate is an adjective I would use to describe him. He raises his voice a lot. It sounds a lot different on t.v. compared to when you're in the courtroom and if it has a high ceiling their voices bounce off the walls and can get quite nerve racking. I don't care for Nurmi's long drawn out questions either. I feel so sorry for this jury. I bet they can't wait to hear, you may now go back and deliberate. Well I'm gonna go it's just to painful and slow to type.

Everyone already knows that this is JM's style - He is the only person, afterall, sticking up for Travis. He does his job well IMO.

 

[Hatfield]

Jodi had blonde hair when she rented the car. When did she die it?

I am not sure. But I do think when she took a few detours in CA, she mentioned she went to one of the salons. I think it was one of those salons where she may have had her hair changed back or something. I think she also got a bikini wax and other things done there. She seemed to know about these off the wall salons in little towns. That to me was kind of strange like how did she know about these places. Did she maybe work as a masseur or something there at one point in her life.

 

[borndem]

Defense witness Dr. Richard Samuels is starting to crack under the strain. If he's on the stand for another two hours, imagine what we will hear . . .

". . . Take the tow line, defective equipment, no more, no less. But they encouraged the crew to go around scoffing at me, and spreading wild rumors about steaming in circles, and then old yellow-strain. I was to blame for Lt. Maryk's incompetence and poor seamanship. Lt. Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Captain Queeg. Ah, but the strawberries, that's where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the ward room icebox did exist, and I've had produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. . ."

I like your analogy, AlanCFA! -- from Doc Samuels to Captain Queeg -- both, IMO, aboard ships going in circles! One is the good ship Caine (read your Bible, folks! :what: ) and the other on the good ship Lollipop (read your DSM!). Both suffering mutinies.

(Ah, Mr. Wouk -- he wrote several of my very fave books! And I still wonder if Queeg was nuts or not... What would Samuels say??)

 

[paperwing]

There is a good chance she will be a formidable opponent, however, in the end I believe Juan Martinez will win.

MOO

panthera, I am curious as to why you think she'll be a formidable opponent (although, truth be told, she'd be the first and it'd be almost refreshing in a way - only because I know she can't best JM. Not if she has ANY integrity regarding ALL victims of abuse and violence).

I actually think Samuels (with his rather pedestrian presence, which some probably found him relatable because of it (so far) connected better than ALV... (I know, she just started).

I think that ALV could foster early (and strong) opinions in the jury... given her testimony thus far. at least (no, not because of - whatever - though I know folks have gone there and it's likely someone on the jury will go there too :sigh, because her focus is so narrowly focused along gender lines - and while statistics do back that up, generally, it in NO way means that this case falls within those parameters. At all.

If ALV is worth her salt, her testimony should be defined by this: that abusers and batterers come in all shapes and sizes, and while less is known about female abusers (especially those who kill).

THIS is the moment - while I wish this trial will define it, historically, but at best, some jurors will 'get' that this - should be the moment when society should stop, listen and understand that abuse definitions are not gender or type specific (in the eyes of the law: physical.

The law (in the US) ignores emotional, financial, proximal, abuse (harassment and stalking laws supposedly cover some of these, but they don't and both victims and abusers know this).

Or that extreme abuse can only be categorized as proactive: aggression, violent, physically hostile (re: an individual, material items) - but that it should also be recognized by controlling passivity, (not criminal/not recognized) withdrawal as a means of penalty/pain/punishment, etc., secretly undermining employment, relationships, family, or denying access to - support, children, etc., or worse - threatening harm and/or promising to turn loved ones (children, or in JA's case - their friend/work community) against the victim.

Many such behaviours (passive, aggressive, physical, legal) are prevalent among abusers who know about and understand the stigma of physical abuse and are extremely adept at avoiding getting caught until/unless... and that female (and likely more and more male) abusers may very well use such 'sub-type' knowledge of abusive rationales and manipulations because they themselves get off on being able to do SO much - legally - and/or do not believe that physical confrontation with a larger, stronger partner will prove successful... UNLESS, (per ALV) they arm themselves...

I cannot imagine, in any way, shape or form, someone who has basically devoted her life to being a victim-of-violence advocate - dismissing or negating not only the crime and the premeditation involved, but the histories of both individuals and the weight of their respective testimony (Travis' by proxy and the total absence of proof of anything untoward, and JA's - that cannot be trusted what.so.ever), as well as (though alleged and known to us at the moment, perhaps not admissible in court) respective histories of abuse (animal abuse, familial abuse, drug alcohol abuse. rebellion, vandalism...). Only JA has a history in all these categories.

I also want this expert to admit that many people/couples/partners have fantasies (some include 'non-consent') but are engaged in with CONSENT of both/all parties - and that this is NOT abnormal or indicative of ANYTHING. Period.

Engaging in tying one's partner's wrists with soft rope does NOT indicate that one is a rapist. Even SAYING the word does not indicate that one is a rapist. Costume, even 'pain' within the sexual experience of consenting adults IS NOT DEVIANT. Until or unless a partner says NO, and JA already testified that she was never at risk, and Travis ALWAYS stopped if she was uncomfortable, physically or otherwise - in any way. There is no abuse here except on the part of JA abusing Travis.

(sorry - long, disjointed - trying to multitask and failing).

 

[thefragile7393]

I don't know if passionate is an adjective I would use to describe him. He raises his voice a lot. It sounds a lot different on t.v. compared to when you're in the courtroom and if it has a high ceiling their voices bounce off the walls and can get quite nerve racking. I don't care for Nurmi's long drawn out questions either. I feel so sorry for this jury. I bet they can't wait to hear, you may now go back and deliberate. Well I'm gonna go it's just to painful and slow to type.

The insiders who have attended have said his voice is not as loud as it seems on TV at all.

 

[chakti]

Mimi testified in court and said this?

Yes she did and more. I believe it was in JM's CIC.

 

[gitana1]

Best for me was when JM caught Samuels telling the jury that if anyone ever showed signs of killing themselves, he would immediately tell authorities. JM came back and asked Samuels if he did some extra studies since his last cross as to what the procedures are. Of course he answered no but JM got his point across.

Worst for me was hearing the new witnesses' credentials.

I must have missed her attempts at making jokes.....I know that if she personally attacks Travis - That will NOT go well with this jury. I expect she will, however.

My hope is that she is going to qualify her opinion: "Yes, if everything jodi told me was true, I would classify her as a victim of DV. Do I know her to be teling the truth? Absolutely not."

She strikes me, based on her CV and the five minutes or so of her testifying that I saw, as not a hack. I pegged Samuels pretty quickly as a paid hack, based on his website (offering to get results, in essence) and the fact that he appeared to me to be delivering to the defense what they paid for. He seemed dishonest and was testifying as if everything jodi said was the absolute, irrefutable truth. few experts do that, unless they have been paid handsomely and have no ethics.

I'm really hoping this lady is not like that. I imagined her more like the expert in the casey anthony case who basically testified that casey's behavior could be indicative of ugly coping, or grieving, but then anything could.

It DID come out with Mimi's testimony; inadvertently...But the State has not entered any of it into evidence which leads one to believe they they were not allowed to do so.

jmo

If it came out inadvertently, though and was not stricken from the record, then it's in and we are good to go!

I just posted all my afternoon observations on the court observer thread. If that helps...it's a bit of a cliff notes of the color inside the courtroom. :seeya:

I love you!!!!!!!! Off to see what's what!!!

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I think this jury has had it already. Now, they have to sit thru yet another witness testimony based on lies by JA?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

panthera, I am curious as to why you think she'll be a formidable opponent (although, truth be told, she'd be the first and it'd be almost refreshing in a way - only because I know she can't best JM. Not if she has ANY integrity regarding ALL victims of abuse and violence).

I actually think Samuels (with his rather pedestrian presence, which some probably found him relatable because of it (so far) connected better than ALV... (I know, she just started).

I think that ALV could foster early (and strong) opinions in the jury... given her testimony thus far. at least (no, not because of - whatever - though I know folks have gone there and it's likely someone on the jury will go there too :sigh, because her focus is so narrowly focused along gender lines - and while statistics do back that up, generally, it in NO way means that this case falls within those parameters. At all.

If ALV is worth her salt, her testimony should be defined by this: that abusers and batterers come in all shapes and sizes, and while less is known about female abusers (especially those who kill).

THIS is the moment - while I wish this trial will define it, historically, but at best, some jurors will 'get' that this - should be the moment when society should stop, listen and understand that abuse definitions are not gender or type specific (in the eyes of the law: physical.

The law (in the US) ignores emotional, financial, proximal, abuse (harassment and stalking laws supposedly cover some of these, but they don't and both victims and abusers know this).

Or that extreme abuse can only be categorized as proactive: aggression, violent, physically hostile (re: an individual, material items) - but that it should also be recognized by controlling passivity, (not criminal/not recognized) withdrawal as a means of penalty/pain/punishment, etc., secretly undermining employment, relationships, family, or denying access to - support, children, etc., or worse - threatening harm and/or promising to turn loved ones (children, or in JA's case - their friend/work community) against the victim.

Many such behaviours (passive, aggressive, physical, legal) are prevalent among abusers who know about and understand the stigma of physical abuse and are extremely adept at avoiding getting caught until/unless... and that female (and likely more and more male) abusers may very well use such 'sub-type' knowledge of abusive rationales and manipulations because they themselves get off on being able to do SO much - legally - and/or do not believe that physical confrontation with a larger, stronger partner will prove successful... UNLESS, (per ALV) they arm themselves...

I cannot imagine, in any way, shape or form, someone who has basically devoted her life to being a victim-of-violence advocate - dismissing or negating not only the crime and the premeditation involved, but the histories of both individuals and the weight of their respective testimony (Travis' by proxy and the total absence of proof of anything untoward, and JA's - that cannot be trusted what.so.ever), as well as (though alleged and known to us at the moment, perhaps not admissible in court) respective histories of abuse (animal abuse, familial abuse, drug alcohol abuse. rebellion, vandalism...). Only JA has a history in all these categories.

I also want this expert to admit that many people/couples/partners have fantasies (some include 'non-consent') but are engaged in with CONSENT of both/all parties - and that this is NOT abnormal or indicative of ANYTHING. Period.

Engaging in tying one's partner's wrists with soft rope does NOT indicate that one is a rapist. Even SAYING the word does not indicate that one is a rapist. Costume, even 'pain' within the sexual experience of consenting adults IS NOT DEVIANT. Until or unless a partner says NO, and JA already testified that she was never at risk, and Travis ALWAYS stopped if she was uncomfortable, physically or otherwise - in any way. There is no abuse here except on the part of JA abusing Travis.

(sorry - long, disjointed - trying to multitask and failing).

I suspect her perception is that whatever Jodi did was a result of being abused, traumatized, etc. and that she can't really be held accountable because she was "made" that way by abusive men, the harshness of life, etc. She is not there to consider TA's side objectively and I really think all men are guilty in her eyes, to some degree.

 

[Pink Panther]

This lady is not a "paid" hack. IMO - She will be much worse. She will be an "unpaid" hack.

I am most probably wrong.

We'll see soon enough.

moo

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Yes she did and more. I believe it was in JM's CIC.

There has to be a reason why the judge is not allowing JM to use this testimony. Like I said before, we didn't watch the entire trial...

Maybe later on, I'll go back and listen to her testimony.

 

[Steely Dan]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

JM's step by step analysis of the exam and getting the witness to explain each and every choice he made was brilliant. I'm just a little bummed that nobody asked that if Jodi qualifies for PTSD, then shouldn't every murderer? It seems like Gus Jr.'s argument was that the PTSD was caused by the murder and that everything she did afterword was consistent with trying to avoid the event. I.E. sending flowers, attending the memorial service, talking to one of TA's friends about how she envisioned their kids playing together, writing an 18 page letter to the family, going on 48 Hours, going on Inside Edition etc... JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst.

I think this next witness for the defense is going to be a much more formidable opponent for JM. I actually like her. When they went through her credentials she seems to be an admirable woman. I'm hoping all of her opinions were based on Gus Jr.'s reports and when she finds out what he really did she turns to the prosecutions side.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

This lady is not a "paid" hack. IMO - She will be much worse. She will be an "unpaid" hack.

I am most probably wrong.

We'll see soon enough.

moo

And that's 2/2 witnesses with a book coming out. Disgraceful.

 

[katiecoolady]

I am not sure. But I do think when she took a few detours in CA, she mentioned she went to one of the salons. I think it was one of those salons where she may have had her hair changed back or something. I think she also got a bikini wax and other things done there. She seemed to know about these off the wall salons in little towns. That to me was kind of strange like how did she know about these places. Did she maybe work as a masseur or something there at one point in her life.

I think Juan is going to revisit that "beauty salon" in rebuttal. I think his asking her if the place she got her "nails" done is actually a hair salon and he knows it. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a hairstylist on the stand who dyed her hair at that "nail salon".

 

[gauntlet]

Wilmott asked a few questions on how LV helped kids. I wonder if JA's parents are going to be blamed for more things that have apparently made Jodi the way she is *eye roll*

 

[katiecoolady]

Ok, I just finished watching the part of the trial I missed today. I think JM has destroyed any credibility that Richard Samuels had since he first raised his hand and took the stand. I was surprised that JM was able to get away with the "Because you have feelings for her!" line, without presenting any real evidence. While I agree with him, it seems in a court of law he should have to prove that. I.E. producing a Valentines card or something.

JM's step by step analysis of the exam and getting the witness to explain each and every choice he made was brilliant. I'm just a little bummed that nobody asked that if Jodi qualifies for PTSD, then shouldn't every murderer? It seems like Gus Jr.'s argument was that the PTSD was caused by the murder and that everything she did afterword was consistent with trying to avoid the event. I.E. sending flowers, attending the memorial service, talking to one of TA's friends about how she envisioned their kids playing together, writing an 18 page letter to the family, going on 48 Hours, going on Inside Edition etc... JMO, but if anyone believes that she was trying to avoid the event they're looney. In my opinion avoiding PTSD is not thinking about the trauma at all, it just comes back due to certain triggers. Like a soldier hearing a car backfire or a balloon burst.

I think this next witness for the defense is going to be a much more formidable opponent for JM. I actually like her. When they went through her credentials she seems to be an admirable woman. I'm hoping all of her opinions were based on Gus Jr.'s reports and when she finds out what he really did she turns to the prosecutions side.

I agree Steely. Not sure if you caught that I spoke with Beth K after court today and she said a lengthy hearing on LaViolette determined she can't testify to ANYTHING about Travis and his supposed "abuse". She can ONLY speak about Jodi as there was no chance to examine Travis. So, most everything she will testify to will be coming from the mouth of the Queen of Lies herself.

 

[MeeBee]

panthera, I am curious as to why you think she'll be a formidable opponent (although, truth be told, she'd be the first and it'd be almost refreshing in a way - only because I know she can't best JM. Not if she has ANY integrity regarding ALL victims of abuse and violence).

I actually think Samuels (with his rather pedestrian presence, which some probably found him relatable because of it (so far) connected better than ALV... (I know, she just started).

I think that ALV could foster early (and strong) opinions in the jury... given her testimony thus far. at least (no, not because of - whatever - though I know folks have gone there and it's likely someone on the jury will go there too :sigh, because her focus is so narrowly focused along gender lines - and while statistics do back that up, generally, it in NO way means that this case falls within those parameters. At all.

If ALV is worth her salt, her testimony should be defined by this: that abusers and batterers come in all shapes and sizes, and while less is known about female abusers (especially those who kill).

THIS is the moment - while I wish this trial will define it, historically, but at best, some jurors will 'get' that this - should be the moment when society should stop, listen and understand that abuse definitions are not gender or type specific (in the eyes of the law: physical.

The law (in the US) ignores emotional, financial, proximal, abuse (harassment and stalking laws supposedly cover some of these, but they don't and both victims and abusers know this).

Or that extreme abuse can only be categorized as proactive: aggression, violent, physically hostile (re: an individual, material items) - but that it should also be recognized by controlling passivity, (not criminal/not recognized) withdrawal as a means of penalty/pain/punishment, etc., secretly undermining employment, relationships, family, or denying access to - support, children, etc., or worse - threatening harm and/or promising to turn loved ones (children, or in JA's case - their friend/work community) against the victim.

Many such behaviours (passive, aggressive, physical, legal) are prevalent among abusers who know about and understand the stigma of physical abuse and are extremely adept at avoiding getting caught until/unless... and that female (and likely more and more male) abusers may very well use such 'sub-type' knowledge of abusive rationales and manipulations because they themselves get off on being able to do SO much - legally - and/or do not believe that physical confrontation with a larger, stronger partner will prove successful... UNLESS, (per ALV) they arm themselves...

I cannot imagine, in any way, shape or form, someone who has basically devoted her life to being a victim-of-violence advocate - dismissing or negating not only the crime and the premeditation involved, but the histories of both individuals and the weight of their respective testimony (Travis' by proxy and the total absence of proof of anything untoward, and JA's - that cannot be trusted what.so.ever), as well as (though alleged and known to us at the moment, perhaps not admissible in court) respective histories of abuse (animal abuse, familial abuse, drug alcohol abuse. rebellion, vandalism...). Only JA has a history in all these categories.

I also want this expert to admit that many people/couples/partners have fantasies (some include 'non-consent') but are engaged in with CONSENT of both/all parties - and that this is NOT abnormal or indicative of ANYTHING. Period.

Engaging in tying one's partner's wrists with soft rope does NOT indicate that one is a rapist. Even SAYING the word does not indicate that one is a rapist. Costume, even 'pain' within the sexual experience of consenting adults IS NOT DEVIANT. Until or unless a partner says NO, and JA already testified that she was never at risk, and Travis ALWAYS stopped if she was uncomfortable, physically or otherwise - in any way. There is no abuse here except on the part of JA abusing Travis.

(sorry - long, disjointed - trying to multitask and failing).

Wonderful post and I agree that the outcome of this trial has the potential to make a powerful statement on what abuse is and shining a light that men can be just as helpless and cornered in their abusive situations. That women can be abusers too. And that women should be punished just as harshly as men. That just because she's a woman doesn't mean she can paint the victim as an evil, abusive misogynist and get off scott free. There's a double standard here that has to stop.

 

[Katie-L]

Further, there has been such a volcano of evidence against jodi, much of it presented during the defense's own presentation, that IMO, the only bad result we can have here is a hung jury and that will only happen if there's a mentally ill or intellectually disabled juror.

lol... well - there goes all my theories of myself

At this point in the trial (and it's not over yet) - I wouldn't find her guilty of 1st degree. Manslaughter - certainly - if that gets on the table. But I'm not on the jury....

But I don;t like any of the insults about witnesses or attorneys' appearance, either, unless it is absolutely germane, like they are wearing something grossly inappropriate or are wearing things or having certain hairstyles to do some4thing (like jodi hiding her face or trying to appear like a little girl or sociopathically emulating her attorney since she has no personality of her own).

Haircuts or suit choices or sock choices or Numri;s weight or junk adjustments, have nothing to do with this case and how well anyone is doing.

It's a very long trial. Not everyone is going to get everything right all the time. And not every last thing about every last person testifying or litigating for the defense is evil or ugly, simply because they are on the wrong side.

That's a cheap way to avoid actual, intelligent criticisms, IMO!!!!

AGREED

The experts in this trial are not, in any way, involved in the crime. They don't belong to the Jodi Arias fan club - there's no secret handshake - no secret attempt to fool the world.

Hating and demeaning them for their professional opinion is best left to people who are paid to do that for entertainment value (like certain talk-show-hosts on certain networks).

 

[paperwing]

I hope you're right. He really needs to tread carefully here. She ain't no Dr Doolittle.

Which, in my view, should make her a better potential ally for the victim here (thus, the state).

If she is truly a champion for any/all victims of domestic abuse - in the varied forms it takes, then she should, ultimately, be a champion for the victim in this case, too. And that is NOT JA.

This is very likely a turning point in her career. This is the most recognition she has/will ever get.

If she is authentic, there is nothing to worry about. She may very well say that JA suffers from symptoms of or akin to abuse victims - or she may even say that she thinks Travis abused JA (hogwash, imv), BUT - and with someone with her years of experience and knowledge there should be a BUT - her findings cannot indicate that JA acted in any excusable way by butchering Travis Alexander...

Frankly, I believe this is the crux of the argument, even if abused (which I do not believe) was JA justified in planning a 3000 mile trip in order to 'defend' herself against a 'batterer' who was leaving the flipping COUNTRY in 5 days!

If ALV finds JA credible... 'nuf said.

 

[katiedid2]

The guest commenting on nancy grace looks like a woman but has a mans voice. Is she female or male, not judging just curious.