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

[MistyM]

Please don't think of changing it back based on my reaction You have every right to have any avatar that fits the WS rules. That was just my knee jerk reaction! It definitely screams 'evil' which is what she is LOL
I'll take some meds and head off any PTSD!:floorlaugh:

LoL!

I'm so nervous tody, I mentioned yesterday i work with sexual & domestic abuse victims, and what i saw of ALaV, well she seems to be a good person, I am going to be so disappointed if she is biased and acts like the good doctor before her. I know we get very passionate about protecting the abused. I will be very sad if she supports these lies. I am hoping she got duped and it comes out on cross.

 

[raisincharlie]

i don't think that's why she's lying about the knife attack. she's lying about it because it's the most horrific, awful aspect of this murder. she will never admit to remembering having that knife in her hand (except for dropping it) because it makes her sound like the monster we know she is and puts that picture of her stabbing him in the minds of the jury.

it's been a plan from the beginning to deny any memory of using a knife----a very calculated move on the part of the defense. it distances her from those autopsy photos and that's what they want.

I have always wondered why she even admited to "dropping" the knife. Why would anyone even bring that up - she never confessed this to the police so how could it possibly be impeached? Not only that, but it flies in the face of Doc Samuels little teaching about the hippocampus and the fact that memories do not exist when the hippo isn't writing. Really, why was this issue even brought up - Jodi thinking it made her appear more believable or what ? I just do not get this one at all.

 

[gloomy]

And I think her going on a camping trip presumably in the middle of nowhere with several men, as the lone female in the group, will go a very long way to discredit it.

JMO

And right after she kills Travis, she's on her way to visit Ryan! Right...:twocents:

 

[cecybeans]

Who gets to decide what is irrelevant or erroneous? Isn't it the jury? Isn't that exactly what is happening here?

I think irrelevant and erroneous are facts that do not support her claim of self-defense, which is the only real issue . And while the jury is free to ignore those that don't, I think the DT has an obligation not to indulge a prevaricating and obviously narcissistic client that simply wants to add new stories she spent a year and a half conjuring up in jail, by making them the body of a defense case. My frustration is that these days it seems DT's are using factors that may well be mitigating and certainly serve a purpose in the sentencing phase, as "evidence" in trials which are simply about guilt or innocence of a specific crime.

While all defendants deserve a fair trial, and should have a great deal of say in how their defense strategy is played, I think that criminal attorneys have an ethical obligation not to use the courtroom for emotional grandstanding regarding what basically come down to mitigating factors that are not proof in any way of innocence of a murder.

While it is true that the pros has the burden of proof against the defendant, similar rules should apply to the defense team if they decide to create reasonable doubt by implicating another (as happened in the Casey Anthony trial), or in a character assassination of the victim, which is happening here. Rules of evidence should apply to any claim, imo.

 

[josie1986]

I disagree.

If a child of mine kicked a dog so hard it was never seen again, and kicked & hit me....that child would find themselves in a RTC so fast their head would spin...especially if there were younger children in the home.

i agree,ive had this convo with my friends many a time. if one of my kids was like this they'd be out on their neck. i don't put up with no bs in this house.

my 4yr old even knows you don't mess with mummy :floorlaugh: but he's 4 going on 40. hes like a wee sweetie wife :floorlaugh:

 

[BritsKate]

Agreed, I think we need an expert to testify why men should not trust, yikes. Does anyone recall if a name or names of people involved in this camping trip plan were mentioned? I wonder if it's true or merely a story to cover up a recent weapon purchase?

IIRC, she testified to it on the witness stand but she (conveniently) couldn't remember the names of those involved other than they were peeps she supposedly worked with - which could easily be secret code for 'there really was no camping trip but dumba££ that I am, I went a bought a gun I better come up with a reason for'.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Sir....Did I ASK you where your own dictionary was??!!! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

corrected it for you!

 

[Dmacky]

Umm - although I may have used the word 'speculation' - but I don't recall saying that without looking at my notes - your interpretation of 'speculation' may not be my interpretation as a professional poster of over 1000 posts - in my years of experience as an expert speculator, I may have made it up, yes.
:facepalm:

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

35 years of experience

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Yes, this is the order I felt Martinez would like to address because it would show Samuels spent more hours with Arias than he testified to. That is only my speculation. :moo:

Looks like the media are after the billings too.

I'm with those that wonder what Juan "has" on Samuels regarding their "relationship." (RS and JA).

Going off what Nosey just said, about more hours spent with Arias than he testified to....what if Samuels visited JA for personal visits, versus "on the clock" (billable hours). More like he visited her as a friend vs a client.

That would be something.

And, like Nosey said above, that's just a speculation or thought.

Darn those jail visit logs being sealed. Grrrrr.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I agree I don't think he had feelings for her either. I think he is at fault for not being cynical enough to question anything she told him. I think he believed her in the beginning and wanted to do something to help her, it's a fine line between evaluating someone and wanting to help them. He crossed the line and made poor judgements but I just think he felt sorry for her situation. He was convinced by her tears and tales of woe and abuse, I think she worked him over in that way, he just wasn't professional enough to separate his evaluation process from feelings of sympathy for her.

But jojo, that was exactly Juan's point - Samuels lost his objectivity. His feelings of compassion were unacceptable in the role of an unbiased evaluator.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Juan to bet Mr Martinez will do just fine with this expert too?

 

[LambChop]

.....

Samuels said it was his job to evaluate her and he did not have to test her to come to the conclusion she had PTSD. That is what I think I heard him say. jmo

 

[missgulfsouth]

I've said it before: this woman is like nothing I've ever seen - and, frankly, I'm grateful.

I'm so sorry you had to go through that! I recently discovered a friend of mine was not who I thought she was at all. She fooled everybody - including her own family. She was not violent (at least, not yet) but she did lie about absolutely everything. I reassured myself that if the people closest to her didn't know, then how could I?

In no way do I think I was stupid or gullible, nor do I think you were. These people are master manipulators. They show you the person they think you want to see and they are very good at pushing the right buttons.

BTW, I think it's wonderful that you escaped his grasp and can share your experiences with others!

Sociopaths are common in our society today. They are allowed to get away with behaviors in childhood that should be corrected. Those little liars grow up to be big liars, and oftentimes, much worse things things than lying.

 

[websurfer]

The defense had zero burden of proof.
They don't need to prove anything. That's the states job. That's the justice system in the USA.

I don't care what it costs to give her a fair trial. Justice IMO is worth it and so is our system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jumping Jack objections make it tough...
Objection!
This makes it tough for the State by omitting information that would help move things along.

 

[josie1986]

LoL!

I'm so nervous tody, I mentioned yesterday i work with sexual & domestic abuse victims, and what i saw of ALaV, well she seems to be a good person, I am going to be so disappointed if she is biased and acts like the good doctor before her. I know we get very passionate about protecting the abused. I will be very sad if she supports these lies. I am hoping she got duped and it comes out on cross.

you avatar is freaking me out :what: you should add some horns :rocker:

 

[ClosArgs]

And I think her going on a camping trip presumably in the middle of nowhere with several men, as the lone female in the group, will go a very long way to discredit it.

JMO

I agree BritsKate. Her whole testimony about the camping trip was creepy. She claims she is in fear of being out there with men she didn't know well because of what happened with TA. Yet her response is not to forego the trip, but to buy a gun? She's more comfortable shooting someone than avoiding the situation?

 

[rose222]

but it accentuates her EEEEVIL...

i feel the same way about 'tot mom' on any forum. her face makes me wanna barf, ya know? if too many people dont like i'll switch it over, don't want to give anyone any post traumatic issues looking at her.

(at least peeps will remember me when i say something)

MistyM. This photo is particularly terrifying. I cannot imagine how she looked as she murdered Travis. Poor boy.

 

[VALee]

IIRC, Jodi did mention a few names, but she couldn't remember everyone who was supposed to go. Additionally, she talked about needing the gun for "protection" against these "friends" because after June 4 she no longer felt safe.

Well, if the killing was accidental, as she claims, wouldn't she be scared to death of guns?

Wonder if we'll see some of these 'camping planners' in rebuttal? Agreed on the accidental versus buy another gun thought, and certainly jurors question too, among a bazillion other counter-reasonable statements.

 

[nightwatch]

When the defendant claims self-defense doesn't the burden of proof rest on the Defense?

thats why ja had to take the stand iirc. jmo

 

[Tracey4AU]

corrected it for you!

Riiiiiiiight......

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: