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

[katydid23]

So basically this entire week was wasted time. All the DT got was a morsel at the end of the day about their 'summary' of the Hughes emails. But once the Hughes take the stand, that will likely be cleared up.

Other than that we had the expert going on and on about her own personal anecdotes and then discussing what she knew, based upon the killers OWN WORDS. So if it is based upon what she was told by Jodi, does the jury have any reason to believe it?

 

[Nosey Parker]

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.

She shouldn't have crossed that line, IMO. Her bias as a mitigation witness (I don't think she was ever the mitigation specialist) should not have been brought over to that as an expert witness in this phase.

Foul! :moo:

 

[Peachy Keen]

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.

I trust Juan knows what books she gave to JA. If they are helpful to his case then he will ask her about them.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Their mock trials are horrible, lots of misinformation and incomplete information presented before non-vetted jurors. It's useless.

 

[SusieD]

I'm way behind, but let's see if I get the gist here.

During our marriage, my husband made a lot more money than me.
He was a few years older than me.
He was a man.

All of this accounts for why he uh, well, treated me pretty well for the most part.

I'm kind of lost here.

You've just been fooled by the male-dominated society that you weren't abused. Fooled. Ask Alice, she'll give you all the reasons you were abused and just didn't know it.

Claiming you weren't abused by a kind, decent, loving husband is the first sign, just ask her. Ugh

 

[katydid23]

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

Yes, ALV was originally the mitigation specialist but eventually agreed to become the expert witness so they hired the other one to replace her.

eta: I am trying to find links for that now. I have reads that here in earlier threads. Anyone else have the source for that?

 

[Clue Finder 55]

Any body remember that old song-Hang Down Your Head Tom Dooly by the Kingston Trio
Well here's my version.


Hang down your head, Jodi Arias
Hang down your head and cry
Hang down your head, Jodi Arias
Your bound to die
I met her in a prison
There I tried to save her life
Met him in his house
Stabbed him with my knife

Hang down your head, Jodi Arias
Hang down your head and cry
Hang down your head, Kirk Numri
Your client, is bound to die

This time tomorrow
Reckon where I'll be
Hadn't a-been for Flores
I'd a-been in Tennessee

Hang down your head, Jodi Arias
Hang down your head and cry
Hang down your head, Jodi Arias
Poor girl, you're bound to die

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

K, thanks, katydid.

 

[VALee]

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

I don't think it could, the jurors have no idea what JM's caseload is or why people might be wanting his autograph. That said, I'm sure they know the media is parked out front and so far have done everything to avoid anything related to the case. They'll get to the bottom of it in the jury polling this afternoon, it's just noise...

 

[Donnareit]

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 think this sex tape redux. KN wanted only "some" of that e-mail entered. CH felt it was being taken out of context. If AVL's testimony opens the door for the ENTIRE e-mail, including the circumstances under which it was made, that will be good.

My worry, in my ignorance, is that AVL is only relying on the info, and the Hughes are under subpoena by the DT. So, if they are not called by the DT maybe they can't be called for rebuttal -- that doesn't seem fair or possible, but I've learned all's not fair in law and too much is possible with a jury.

 

[geokaren]

yes, JM keeps objecting citing rule 703 which covers material that is inadmissible as evidence but which an "expert" can use to make a determination. The emails thew witness keeps referring to are inadmissible themselves but she can characterize them as they were a part of her working material.

At least that's my understanding. I doubt we will ever see the full text of the email exchange - or at least not until the trial is over and all appeals are exhausted.

 

[Softail]

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??!!

As with everything, the defense gets away with a lot more than the prosecution. If it had been the defense signing autographs (I know :lol, then it would not have been a big deal. Any teeny tiny ounce of impropriety by the prosecution will be vigorously pounced on every time. There have already been several hearings in this trial concerning prosecutorial misconduct, and motions for mistrial.

People need to back off of JM and let him finish his job. Have fun and games after the trial! :twocents:

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

If this trial and its outcome were based on the truth, I'd be fine with whatever happened. It's all about the game, and all about the dance. I know that everyone deserves a defense but this is obscene. A human being was butchered. I don't care how 'mean' anyone claims TA may ever have been.
If JA would have been stalking me, I can't begin to think of what I would have done or said in frustration and sheer anger! Throwing a phone wouldn't even make the radar. I'd have thrown a car. On her. And then lifted it and dropped it again. Sorry, I am not in a good mood about any of this today. It took record time to ramp me up with this BS.

Hey BG from PA,

I hear you loud and clear especially the "dropping the car on HER twice". We have gone thru this in so many trials , it is just the way it is. Each side doing what it takes to win for their client. I am not an attorney, but I would say if I ever needed one I would want one who would do everything possible to keep me out of jail, let alone the death penalty.

My friends all think I am a Justice Freak--You know "Life should be fair, be played by the rules, have value" . Well I am 60 years old and Have found out I have been deluding myself. I take joy in what works out that way and just ACCEPT what doesn't, after all 1 person cannot make the difference.

Whatever the jurors take into that jury room with them we have no control over. I just hope no matter what the defense can throw at them to believe Travis was less of a man, they will see through it or disregard it. After all they are not judging the kind of man Travis was, that is for his Maker to do. They must decide if someone had the right to rip the life out of him before his time,brutally and without remorse.

Let's hope they make the choice they can LIVE with.:twocents:

 

[missy1974]

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.

I think the emails (sent back and forth between Travis and Chris/Skye Hughes in January 2007) and the forged letters (inadmissable) that resulted in emails between Nurmi and Skye Hughes (in 2010?) are being confused a bit.

 

[Myvice]

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.

But is she testifying as a mitigation specialist or an expert in DV?

If she didn't enter into this with an unbiased perspective I can't understand how her opinion could be called anymore than just an opinion. OK, I just read that and I know it doesn't make much sense.

Thanks for answering though.

 

[Donnareit]

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.

I don't think so. I mean if everybody with boundary issues jumps off a cliff, are you going to?

 

[Colt46]

Did you notice today when ALV was asked if she liked JA how she hesitated to give an answer and when she finally did she kind of skirted around it. Never really giving a yes or no.

That's a plus! I must have missed it but will be sure to check it out tonight on the DVR. JA must have been fuming, lol.....

 

[4Jacy]

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?

If these were indeed written by Chris and Sky Hughes they probably said that stuff because she wouldn't leave Travis alone! Remember they were the ones that told Travis not to bring Jodi to their home anymore.

 

[VALee]

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"?

DT already tried to get info out of CH on cross, it did not go well. JM will clear it up during cross, and again when CH called for rebuttal.

 

[Donnareit]

yes, JM keeps objecting citing rule 703 which covers material that is inadmissible as evidence but which an "expert" can use to make a determination. The emails thew witness keeps referring to are inadmissible themselves but she can characterize them as they were a part of her working material.

At least that's my understanding. I doubt we will ever see the full text of the email exchange - or at least not until the trial is over and all appeals are exhausted.

Mine too, and I still it's a low down polecat way to win at all costs.