trial day 38: the defense continues its case in chief #112

[Myvice]

I'm not understanding why LaViolet was able to send Jodi books or magazines and it was any different than Samuels. Was she supposed to be treating Jodi? Maybe I'm not understanding what her duties as a witness are. Can anyone help me? I fear I'm lost.

I guess she isn't qualified to do any unbiased testing, just offer an opinion based on the evidence she's been allowed to view?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Not only that, but as someone here posited earlier, the Hughes may have been initially duped by JA's fake letters - which, if true, is beyond heart breaking and heinous.

It sure would explain a lot - especially CH's fury with the DT.

Anyone who could do that to a friendship - and take it SO far as to offer false evidence (all the while refusing to say who initially 'sent' them to her or providing originals when doing could have a significant impact on her) makes the idea of premeditation just that much easier to see.

I'm confused... it seems like the letter/s between C/SH about JA are pre-June 04/08. The fake letters were known to the DT and state in 2010 per court record, but I'm sure they were aware of them well before that.

Of course JA caused friction and tension between the Hughes and Travis - that's what a psychopath like her does: divide and conquer. Even w/o the fake letters.

I am sure she told the Hughes one thing and Travis another, etc. to create conflict because she wasn't about to compete with his closest friends... Sadly, I've seen this type of manipulation first hand and it is very effective, if only to plant a seed of doubting or mistrusting the other innocent party - just the sense of being on guard is enough to do damage.

There is nothing redeeming about this defendant. Nothing.

Hang on you mean the letters were sent when Travis was alive? Is this what he refers to in the text to Jodi on the 26th?

 

[Schuby]

Are we on afternoon break? Or is it done for the day? I'm watching HLN, so I'm not sure, because they are behind.

Done for the day.

 

[chicoliving]

what day was this from?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bTzT-c0DI"]Jodi Arias Murder Trial day 10. Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

I think 1/29/13 since that is the date of the posts with CH's testimony.

 

[EquallyDivided]

HLN cut off some of the testimony - AGAIN! When someone comes across a link, I'd appreciate it.

 

[katydid23]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda7NJ
I'll give it to Jodi's lawyer today, she was pretty successful rehabbing Samuels on the book thing...through this witness.

Maybe not so successful if the books this witness gave to JA were on Domestic Violence, BWS etc.

But there is a big difference between Samuels and ALV. Samuels was supposed to be an IMPARTIAL evaluator. Not the same as ALV, who was the mitigation specialist and was supposed to become closer to the killer. Different ethics involved, imo.

 

[Curious Me]

Travis is being killed again and again by Jodi every single day in the courtroom. She wasn't sorry for killing him the first three times in the sanctuary of his own home. She is getting further satisfaction by destroying him and his family to the whole world to this day.

There's no justification for killing Travis. There is no justification that can make her decisions and actions right.

Jurors, keep those gas cans in mind, please!

May we all get the final satisfaction when this Jodi beast gets the DP.

 

[josie1986]

After watching the video of Chris Hughes testifying in that prosecutorial misconduct hearing again, I believe it is the prosecution that does not want the emails in. IMO I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that whatever is said in them is probably not good, could be taken out of context, or could be misinterpreted. But Chris Hughes did agree that they were about the way Travis was treating Jodi.
I can't see Juan bringing the actual content, word for word, in to the trial, not after seeing the ojections in that hearing, and seeing the objections today. but JMO ;-)

do you have a link to this video?

 

[MeeBee]

Does the jury not know about her get away car? I thought they did hear that?

 

[missy1974]

I think of Cheney Mason pushing his way thru crowds of reporters dropping profanities, but JM endulging folks with a photo is deemed misconduct. OY! What is wrong with this picture??!!

The difference is.... this jury is coming and going freely. I have seen some of our court room observers post that jurors just walked past, or in the elevator, stuff like that. We didn't see that with CA trial. I missed a bit of it this morning and am curious if the jurors use those same doors when coming and going?

I know it's not a popular opinion, but I have to agree, that Juan just needs to chill for a bit, wait until the trial is over and then he can do whatever. The attorney on HLN just said, that as the lawyers, it's their responsibility to conduct themselves appropriately. He also said that it will become an 'appeal issue' now. *sigh*

 

[katydid23]

I'm not understanding why LaViolet was able to send Jodi books or magazines and it was any different than Samuels. Was she supposed to be treating Jodi? Maybe I'm not understanding what her duties as a witness are. Can anyone help me? I fear I'm lost.

I guess she isn't qualified to do any unbiased testing, just offer an opinion based on the evidence she's been allowed to view?

ALV was not hired to do an 'evaluation.' Samuels was hired to be an objective, impartial specialist to evaluate Jodi's mental and emotional state.

ALV was hired initially to be a mitigation specialist. Very different roles.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

But there is a big difference between Samuels and ALV. Samuels was supposed to be an IMPARTIAL evaluator. Not the same as ALV, who was the mitigation specialist and was supposed to become closer to the killer. Different ethics involved, imo.

Wait, there's a separate mitigation specialist (Stodola). Are you sure ALV was too?

 

[elementary]

I suspect we will see both of the Hughes during rebuttal...

I wasn't clear. The OP made a good point- instead of having LV interpret the email, why didn't the defence simply call the Hughes to the stand about this so called "abuse"?

 

[seguek9]

For some reason I think that Donovan person informed Jodi/defense about Katie's picture. Donovan was quoted on HLN last night about jail hours.

So maybe Donovan sees the picture on HLN's website and thinks Katie works for HLN and with her vast knowledge of the justice system, figures its grounds for a mistrial and tells Jodi and the defense team.

Whatever happened, the defense looked like idiots.

MOO!!




Sent from my SPH-D710BST using Tapatalk 2

I would venture to guess that Donovan (or Donovan buddies) read here. That pic was posted here a while ago...fortunatly, it is an absurd claim by the DT and it will burn itself out in time.....
I only hope Katieddj is ok.....as well as katiekcl, Pasa and everyone else who may be close to this inane accusation. JM too!! Goodness --imagine how he is feeling right now!!!

:furious: Nurmi :furious: Willie :furious: JA

 

[sammie]

Well, doesn't that say it all.

After watching the video of Chris Hughes testifying in that prosecutorial misconduct hearing again, I believe it is the prosecution that does not want the emails in. IMO I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that whatever is said in them is probably not good, could be taken out of context, or could be misinterpreted. But Chris Hughes did agree that they were about the way Travis was treating Jodi.
I can't see Juan bringing the actual content, word for word, in to the trial, not after seeing the ojections in that hearing, and seeing the objections today. but JMO ;-)

I believe the emails were ruled inadmissible. The DT is being sneaky by getting them in indirectly through their expert witness, which is allowed apparently.

 

[Zuri]

BBM

I thought at first she was dying to turn around and look at Katie W. This is bogus, but maybe she was looking at Juan? Maybe her crush hasn't cooled off yet? I don't totally buy it, but she was looking at someone ALL DAY! :what:

I think your first impression was probably correct. IMO, JA was glaring at Katie Wick. I am sure her posse has been telling her that Katie is a nightly figure on DD and has been pro- prosecution. Things came to a head when JA was caught on tape passing notes, stealing things etc and Katie validated that activity. JA is wicked to be sure. Nurmi is going to use anything and everything to get at JM. JM has outlawyered Nurmi and Nurmi is not happy. Hence the constant mistrial motions. And we have Baez to thank for introducing these kind of antics into the courtroom. Shame on all of them. JMV

 

[swanna]

But if a someone on the jury saw it.could it cause a mistrial?

I thought the jury was not allowed to watch any media or read anything regarding the trial??

 

[VALee]

Wait, nurmi sent letters to them trying to get them to say something that was not true??

Erhics much?

Nurmi originally sent CH & SH 10 letters supposedly written from TA to JA basically confirming he was a pedophile amongst other things. The letters have been ruled out because they are only copies of an unknown origin. Nurmi tried to pass them off to the Hughes as 100% authentic via email, according to CH's testimony.

 

[paperwing]

From an article of hers, she says:

"There is no research that can say that the cost of women's violence — emotionally, physically, or in regard to property damage — in any way matches the violence perpetrated by men."

Nice fallacy. There is no research that can say purple unicorns do not exist. Therefore, they must exist, right ALV?? Guess she never uncovered the concept of falsifiability in her pioneering 35 year career?

Hate to say it, but her quote is probably accurate. Notice the wording, "There is no research that can say..." bet she's right.

She is arguing the difference in research - knowing that lack of interest/research in how/why female perpetrators abuse and the harm, massive cost and ripple affects doesn't mean it's not there or less "bad"... it's just that it's not on anyone's front burner. After this trial, that may start to change.

ALV also grouped forms of violence by women against physical violence by men. To me, that illustrates that she knows darn well that abusive behaviours do not look the same (generally) in men and women. Or she was conflating. Probably both.

ETA: I agree with you, by the way. This type of quote bugs me. She's being very cagey.

 

[SyraKelly]

This is the story that Jean C was asked about

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...as-trial-sideshows-abound.html?nclick_check=1