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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe they were both admonished not to watch the trial because they'd be recalled.

For anyone interested, this was the cross-examination by <modsnip> of Chris Hughes. You can tell CH was wound up tight.

Jodi Arias Murder Trial day 10. Part 3 - YouTube

thanks for posting this. i have a vague memory of this. it was during the whole 'prosecutorial misconduct' thing, right? and nurmi somehow managed to bring up this jan., 2007 email during his questioning of chris hughes, even though it had zippo to do with the prosecutorial misconduct.

even chris hughes doesn't know what this email's about because he doesn't have the complete thread----just like ALV didn't have it today. he DID comment on TA's treatment of JA, but he said himself he didn't know the context of the conversation.

this is some slick trick nurmi's trying to pull. they found an email they think proves TA abused her, and it's all they have.

i feel better now, because JM will put this to rest. is chris hughes on the list of rebuttal witnesses?
 
Brief summary appreciated, please. Didnt get to watch today and something came down?
 
I don't see how Skye can clean up what she wrote in her email when she said she wouldn't let her own sister date TA due to the abusive way he treated previous women.

This was fairly early on in her knowing JA and before the became an "item". It would not be long before Chris and Skye had genuine concerns about JA and talked with him for an hour and a half trying to convince him to end the relationship. Skye became aware of JA listening outside the door; when the door was opened, there was JA with a look that frightened Chris and Skye.

The Hughes told Travis never to bring JA to their house again or anywhere near their children.

Their opinions did change significantly over time and I'm sure that Skye would make an excellent witness for the prosecution.
 
I had to come back on and express how mad I am at the DT for taking third party emails and having their "expert" interpret them. I hope the jury is not dumb and just take this at face value. The jury should be wondering why the DT hasn't called the Hughes as witnesses so they can explain their email.

What happened today would be like having a complete stranger take a random email of mine that I sent to my DH and interpret it through their domestic abuse shaded glasses. Oh I asked my husband to pick milk up on the way home. I must have the power in the relationship and am therefore abusive. I am having a temper tantrum about this.

This "expert" should not be interpreting other people's emails. So wrong.

I was thinking I might have to report you. aren't you ashamed for your agressive behavior?
 
I think Martinez should wait until the trial is over. If he wants to give a short interview with the media, I don't see anything wrong with that. He is suppose to be fighting to have someone put to death. IMO it makes it look like it's becoming about him. He needs to remember he is working for Travis and his family, not to become a celebrity. I remember Judge Seidlin in the Anna Nicole case, I was asked to do some research for him, I noticed with all the media attention he began to act differently. He was talking about getting his own t.v. series.

The media tried to interview him about the craziness that day and he declined. He hasn't spoken to anyone. What was he supposed to do, tell them to get lost? He was ambushed. I am assuming that's why he declined the interview. He doesn't want to make it about him.
 
I thought so, too, since ALV had not known Travis and was not able to interview him. I thought that CA's DT was the lowest of the low, but Jodi's defense now takes the prize. I'd expect this of Nurmi who really doesn't seem to have the talent to be a good attorney. JW, though, seems pretty savvy and smart, but her sneaky tactics negate anything positive that I see in her ability to be a really good litigator. :moo:

In moo....Willie is very wiley...and sneaky. Shes an embarrassment to female lawyers (giggling, smirking, batting eyes....)....moo. :cow:

don't hate me:please:
 
This was fairly early on in her knowing JA and before the became an "item". It would not be long before Chris and Skye had genuine concerns about JA and talked with him for an hour and a half trying to convince him to end the relationship. Skye became aware of JA listening outside the door; when the door was opened, there was JA with a look that frightened Chris and Skye.

The Hughes told Travis never to bring JA to their house again or anywhere near their children.

Their opinions did change significantly over time and I'm sure that Skye would make an excellent witness for the prosecution.


Yes, they did did say that but still it doesn't change what they wrote about TA and his having problems. They seemed to have found fault with both JA and TA. I don't have much regard for either of the Hughes at this point.
 
But that was before this 'expert' testimony basing all of her opinions on this email chain. Maybe now that ruling will be revisited. JMO

this is what i don't get. there ARE actual rules and laws the judge can use when it comes to evidence and she doesn't seem to use them. it's OUT, then it's IN. it makes me crazy.

if she said this was inadmissible, i don't see how ALV could even comment on it and express an opinion about it, when it's not in evidence for the jury to SEE for themselves---IN ITS ENTIRETY.

i've never seen a judge who made so many rulings, and then completely caved and let the things she ruled OUT come IN anyway.
 
I think it can be cleared up. The word 'abusive' can mean different things to different people. A Mormon woman might consider it 'abusive' that he wanted sexual relationship with someone. Another woman might consider that normal behavior. JMO

Exactly!!! I can't agree more. Just because Sky wouldn't want Travis to date her sister because he liked to date around had no bearing on this case. This can be cleared up easily. It's all in the context!
 
Yeah...I remember that.

This is a public forum.....lord knows ive been reading (without being a member) for like 3-4 years before I joined. Hell...jodi herself could read here (oh and if she does… :sumo:

Do they have access to computers in jail/prison? ty
 
No, because Nurmi moved them into evidence using the language "for the purposes of this hearing only, under seal."

hmmmm I thought those were the phone numbers? He asked Chris to write down Chris and his wife, Skye's phone numbers. I thought that was what was under seal.
 
Post #2217 from lil buddy about AVL being named in complaint: Letter to Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office re. discrimination against men by the County Domestic Violence Council.

After reading the complaint I was led to an article she wrote: Researchers Agree Women May Hit Their Male Partners, But Infrequently 'Batter' Them — Pattern of Coercion Is Seldom Present in Female Aggression

Says something about her views on men verus women being abused.

And that leads me to posting another article, the US Dept of Justice Report on Family Violence which states that males comprised 24% of victims of abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or girlfriend and 25% of victims killed by a boyfriend or girlfriend.

"Approximately 60% of family violence victimizations were reported to police between 1998 and 2002. The reporting rate among female victims was not significantly greater than the reporting rate among male victims."
 

Attachments

  • fvs02.pdf
    740.5 KB · Views: 7
There's no way on earth the DT is going to call Chris. He pummled Nurmi in the hearing, and they don't want him anywhere near the courtroom much less on the stand.

I wanna see it, was it recorded??? :please:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,773
Total visitors
1,926

Forum statistics

Threads
600,067
Messages
18,103,385
Members
230,984
Latest member
Leeloocee
Back
Top