trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #111

[justice be served]

Letter to Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office re. discrimination against men by the County Domestic Violence Council.

ALV is named in this complaint.

Thank you for enlightening us on this defense witness.

 

[ButForFortune]

Letter to Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office re. discrimination against men by the County Domestic Violence Council.

ALV is named in this complaint.

Very interesting!

 

[KittyMomOf5]

Take off the child protection filters?..you were warned

Exactly! The poster will wish she/he hadn't looked!!!

 

[dani]

And how will the jury know that?!!!

Wilmott opened the door and Juan will drive his Mack truck right thru it, over it, under it, and around it. :twocents:

 

[Love Never Fails]

Myspace and maybe any other social site back then.

Isn't that the truth. How do you ask each juror without being prejudicial?

Q: when you went outside did you see the prosecutor?

A: Yes/No - if yes, what did you see him doing?

That in and of itself is going to make each juror wonder what JM was doing (if they didn't see it themselves).

I just worry how this may effect the trial. Like Jinkasaurus said.

All MOO

Mel

Please don't depend on Jean C for facts. She is so pro-defense!

 

[kayice]

Apparently, Jodi put out the vibes that she would allow sex from the start. If Travis didn't do that to other women, why did he do this to Jodi? We only have Jodi's word....if she was hanging all over him, sucking on his ear? Hmm, Jodi was looking for Legs Open Very Easily. Two guys wrote a book about the difference between women and men when they start dating. Jodi used sex as lure to get men, she used sex to manipulate, she used sex to gold dig, she used sex to blackmail.
Why did Jodi even start a relationship if she was living with another man? No boundaries.

 

[Tipstaff]

To see if any of them witnessed Juan signing autographs outside of court.

Just more of Nurmi's BS from this morning.

Nurmi is throwing everything out to see what sticks ...perhaps a mistrial now or appeal issues once Her Royal Highness is convicted. Seems now that shenanigans are the order of the day the closer the trial comes to ending.

Matching outfits, migraine headaches, smiling prosecutors. What do we envision next week being .......sword fighters outside the court house.

Remember when Scott Peterson's lawyer Mark Geragos had the boat parked near the court house - near where the jurors crossed. Pretty soon the boat was filled with flowers in memorial to Laci Peterson? Stunts abound right about now!

:moo:

 

[gitana1]

How can the judge allow her to interpret someone else's email?

I want to know how it can come in without a Huges testifying and laying the foundation for it.

I know this has been asked a thousand times ....

But how in the heck is any of this expert testimony not hearsay?

Because the defense is stating that the out of court statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (or to prove that Travis or the Hughes' actually stated what the e-mail makes it appear he or they stated). Instead, it is being offered to prove what the expert relied on the form her opinion.

It's a sneaky way in this case to get in evidence that otherwise would be inadmissible.

 

[ButForFortune]

Another question...let's say, hypothetically *ahem* someone on a certain website that supports JA sent a supportive email to Dr. Samuels. He replied. Even though no specific info was given about the case from Dr.Samuels, isn't that wrong? Communicating with a witness that could be re-called at some point? ESPECIALLY since no one on the witness list(s) should be watching/listening/hearing about the trial?

Hmmm . . .

Should Juan know about this "hypothetical"?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I would think they will have to word it differently.

Like, have you ever seen any of the attorneys walk out the front doors? Which ones? What were they doing?

 

[JSR]

On another forum everyone seems to thinks it's gonna be Tricolor that does it.

But we don't yet know who will be jurors and who will be alternates. Tri color may not even be a juror.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Asking the jurors individually if they have seen JM outside the courtroom is prejudicial. This may cause some jurors to believe JM was doing something illegal or immoral outside the courtroom.

OMG ... This is a good point !

I missed the "drama" this morning but I am catching up now ...

And you are so right -- it is prejudicial and may even "sway" a juror's mind!

I am soooooooooo disgusted with the devious and unethical tactics in this courtroom by the defense :furious:

:moo:

 

[KittyMomOf5]

The word "abuse" has been thrown around much too liberally without qualifying it. I usually take it to mean physical violence, but at the least emotional abuse. Not being monogamous with someone is not something I would call abuse. We don't even know it the Hugheses used the word "abuse," that's just what ALV said, but even if they did, we don't know in what context they meant it. Mormonism has stricter rules about sex and relations and "abuse" to them may not be abuse to someone else. And if they meant he cheated on women, that's just a normal hazard of dating.

Exactly. My biggest problem was I evidently needed more help in language development so I could pronounce N-O ... I must have missed the day we learned that word in 1st grade... :facepalm:

 

[fran]

:wave:

We need to move on over to a new thread. This thread will close in approximately 5 minutes.

Please continue here:

trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #112 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[AnArmyWife_98]

Hmmm . . .

Should Juan know about this "hypothetical"?

Exactly. It should also be noted, hypothetically speaking of course, that only Dr. Samuels reply was posted online, NOT the original email to him. Who knows what could have been said in that...erm, hypothetical email.

 

[LambChop]

BBM - Wait, what? Was he really doing that? You would think he, of all counsel, would be the one keeping his feet on the ground and his nose to the book. I like JM, but this lapse in judgement on his part might cost him some :facepalm:

It's not misconduct. He did nothing wrong. He did not discuss the case with anyone. He did not give the press an interview. He did not even speak with them. JM is in the clear because he has done nothing wrong. The judge wants to make sure the jurors did not see anything that would affect their judgment in the this case regarding JM. If one juror did they will probably dismiss that one juror if they feel it would affect their judgment. Jurors can always go to the judge if they feel they have an issue or conflict. This jury seems to be aware of that. They are not sequestered. jmo

 

[JSR]

I think if that was true the defense would have questioned them about that already.

They would if it also meant they wouldn't get to the rest of the information the Hughes know. No the DT wants to tailor what this jury hears. Much like they selectively enter certain texts and clips from the audio tape.

Now it just means Juan can have the Hughes on the stand in rebuttal and get the context straight from the horses mouth.

I can't wait for rebuttal!!!!!!!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Well, I have felt from the beginning there was something 'hinky' about the Hughes', and although we have have heard summary's of what the DT thinks is in the emails, we have not seen them. I do however recall Chris saying that Sky only said those things (not specifics) after Nurmi told her it was proven it was Travis that wrote the pedo forged letters. I have always thought, what in the world could she have said in those emails???

Anyway, I don't think this will set her free. There is just so much to counter it. I would love to see Chris and Sky Hughes called to the stand, by either the Defense or Prosecution.

If I saw letters about admitting pedophilia by a friend, and a lawyer told me they were genuine, I'd probably have some less than complimentary things to say. It means nothing, especially if she was talking about letters which were actually fake.

 

[SyraKelly]

I know this is not going to be popular,but Jean C is getting a bad rap here for something she probably didn't even know was going to happen.

She was doing an interview and the interviewer ask her as a lawyer about a video of Juan taking pictures with people(Katie) outside the courtroom-Jean said she would be concerned as a lawyer if a juror saw it.Not that she saw Juan or a juror herself.
She probably had not a clue until this morning Nurmi was calling her to the stand.Jean did nothing wrong,she gave her PO on a video!!

 

[Truth Detector]

I'll give it to Jodi's lawyer today, she was pretty successful rehabbing Samuels on the book thing...through this witness.

As many of us predicted...