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

[Callisto]

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?

Just like when Willmott asked her if every child who grows up in abusive houses become abusers.. She said there was no way to know because they can't ask everyone out there. Wouldn't the logical answer be No? Does she not know of one single person who grew up with violence and abuse who didn't inflict violence and abuse as an adult?? Ughhh!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Love Never Fails]

Yes-I watched the CA trail,which has nothing to do with what happened today.
Jean was asked her professional Opinion as a lawyer in an interview about Juan taking pictures outside of the courtroom,she gave her PO as a lawyer that she would be concern if a juror saw it and I happen to agree with her.Its not that I don't like Juan-I very much do,not as much as a lot of people here.LOL,But I do like him.She was asked a question on air about it and she answered-I am sure she had no idea Nurmi would make such a big deal out of it!People are saying she inserted herself today and I just don't see it that way.She answered a question,that was all.!!JMO

I guess just the title of lawyer entitles you to a "professional" opinion. I stand by what I said. Glad she isn't practicing cause we know where she would be sitting.

 

[katydid23]

Why aren't they reading the emails instead of summarizing?

EXACTLY. I don't think it is fair for this woman, who is speaking on behalf of the defense team, to be able to 'summarize' the email chain. How is that objective or impartial in any way?

I once told a girl that my son was seeing that imo, she should 'move on.' It doesnt mean my son was being abusive in any way. But I could see that she wanted much more from the relationship than he did. If someone read our conversation in transcript form it might seem like I was putting down my DS. But I was just looking out for both of them. JMO

 

[cecybeans]

This whole flap about JM and the autograph is so reminiscent of how FCA's DT made such a brouhaha over the poor detective who had been injured and was gracious enough to thank WS'ers for our well wishing for his recovery. Completely irrelevant to the case and egregiously hypocritical given what media opportunists that whole DT team was for the entire duration. I don't mind the state and their teams being forced to be extremely circumspect but the same rules should apply to the DT and the defendant, which includes not getting to interfere with investigations, evidence or any other optical scamming illusion in court like this bit of hearsay legerdemain today(not to mention all the bs media interviews JA gave in an attempt to market herself as a victim after the fact).

Frankly, I hope JM makes ALV explain her little chart again under cross and show the jury how far down the abuse scale name-calling, "character assasination" and anything else TA may have done are compared to stalking and other "terrorism" activities (such as Psycho-shower scenes) we know the defendant perpetrated.

IMO, JA would try the patience of a saint and her manipulative, narcissistic, obsessive, self-gratifying behavior was exhausting and frustrating enough to bring out the "bad parenting" personality (according to ALV) in anyone, not to mention a person who may have had a higher tolerance for dysfunctional behavior or someone with perhaps less coping skills or strategies, given TA's childhood. I'm thinking some of what gets categorized as "abuse" here on TA's part is simply the desperate attempt of a naive and poorly equipped person to distance himself from an extremely toxic human being.

Also, I'm not too worried about this jury. Any person whose critical thinking skills are weak enough to be sympathetic to the defendant at this point will be easily convinced by other jurors who obviously see through all this noise. We can tell those kind are among them given the insightful and shrewd jury questions, thankfully. I can see them going all JM over any holdouts in deliberation.

 

[AZWatcher]

One more thing before I give myself a much-needed break from this trial...

I don't wanna hear anymore pontificating or commiserating or any more GD so-called experts render ridiculously biased opinions based on TOTALLY UN-SUBSTANTIATED LIES from the SELF- SERVING MURDERER Jodi Arias' LIE HOLE!!

 

[elementary]

Why doesn't this Hughes person testify for himself, instead of this lady interpreting it?

That's an excellent question! Why did the defence not simply put the Hughes on the stand to testify to this?

 

[Nosey Parker]

Yes, yes and yes! With underlying rage and resentment, IMO. She's just a great "soft", warm fuzzy communicator.

A very typical 'grass rooter'. That was the term back in the seventies and eighties. Most women joined the DV and Rape movements back then based on their own personal experiences, and with a genuine desire to help others, and to improve the emergency response and judicial system. None of them needed a Phd. to be hired by a shelter.

Catch words have changed, and today's advocates are educated in the appropriate sciences. There are a few of the old grass rooters still in the system, and they are recognised for their dedication by the new gals on the block, but their values remain 'back in the day'.

I know this, because I was one. :blushing:

 

[gngr~snap]

They were wearing them on the 26th and that was National Epilepsy day, however if they were wearing them today that is a whole nother story.

They had them on yesterday as well.
I had to :footinmouth: -
gave them the benefit of the doubt should have known better!

Fool me once shame on you
Fool me twice shame on me!

 

[Tuba]

The expected bias is conspicuous and extreme. Willmott's questions assume victims are women because she uses those words interchangeably. No other possibility considered. So all her questions launch from that platform. The witness likes everyone and I'm happy for her soul but not for the purposes of this trial. All of ALaV's clients are damaged goods and their outcomes are just a natural progression of what she divines in them. She is obviously a relativist and therefore the notion of judgment on a monstrous crime is anathema to her. We will not find justice in her testimony, merely empathy & understanding. She emphasizes that there are no saints and no villains. Her mind resorts to the developmental continuum and there she finds all her answers. She values highly the framework provided and it is also eminently convenient for the materials she wants to plug in or omit to include. I am left very sad today and I think most of us who follow this case are also sad, as we see and hear Travis's commendable life become a blot. His person, struck & injured every way possible with ringing words stated with credentialed authority from an "expert" under oath.

 

[Kensie]

One more thing before I give myself a much-needed break from this trial...

I don't wanna hear anymore pontificating or commiserating or any more GD so-called experts render ridiculously biased opinions based on TOTALLY UN-SUBSTANTIATED LIES from the SELF- SERVING MURDERER Jodi Arias' LIE HOLE!!

AMEN!!!! I second that!!

 

[zaza]

Too me, it seems like the witnesses keep forgetting that JA drove 1000 miles to see him after she had moved back to CA two months earlier.. She made the trip. She went to see him. Gosh, I am spitting nails again.

The 1000 mile drive is going to be a good cross examination quiz for AL.

 

[justice be served]

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?

This is just shockingly prejudicial for the defense. JM, have at her with your zealous quest to put this murderer away and save Travis' good name.

 

[jojomonkey]

I would love to know the books AVL sent to JA. I am sure JA got plenty of schooling on them to help her form her pitiful story. I mean BS.

Me too - after all she wasn't counseling a woman in an abusive relationship, or one trying to leave one. This is someone sitting in jail for murder. Totally different than your usual clients.

Whatever she sent her surely helped her develop her stories better, and chances are, if we got ahold of the books we'd find consistencies with what she's spewed on the witness stand. She got lots of ideas from those for sure.

I had hoped, and stated, that I thought ALV had more integrity than she's displayed so far. I thought Juan had a chance to flip her but I don't think she'll bend and admit she might have been wrong.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I was just thinking, TO me, he was so awful that as she is yammering on the phone at him after their sexcapade, he did not say.. SEE YA! And hang up.. He sat listening to her drone on and on about nothing. TO me that speaks volumes. He could have been rude, he got what he wanted right? But no, he was nice and he hung on the phone talking to her to make her feel better and okay.

This was not a bad guy.

 

[Ricki]

Here's a quote from an article listed in her Bibliography - 2000:

"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."

When JW asked her if she treated male patients, it felt like she was asking her if she treated rhesus monkeys or something. She was also asked if she was ever afraid of any of her male patients. She hesitated for a minute before saying that she was afraid once - because one of her DV patients was a gangbanger who had murdered people.

I think she would be lying through her teeth if she said that JA didn't give her the creeps! It all boils down to the $$$.

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.

 

[VALee]

That's an excellent question! Why not simply put the Hughes on the stand to testify to this?

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

 

[tommyray]

I believe Juan will be able to introduce them into evidence. He'll also be able to call rebuttal witnesses who wrote the emails.

I think JM can clarify the Hughes' intent via the DT's expert witness. I noticed that when the witness was putting the abusive characterization in context (TA's not wanting to commit, calling JA a *advertiser censored* and laughing about it/illtreatment), JW cut her off. So it seems the Hughes' were basically telling JA that TA would not make an honest woman of her and she should just move on to someone who had marriage as a goal.

 

[SyraKelly]

She inserted herself because she made a big deal about it on the air the day before on HLN, making it a big story about how Juan's this big rock star and she also insinuated that he was having an autograph signing session when in fact it was one person who asked him to autograph her cane. Sensationalism at its finest.

I heard it was someone else who did a story on his rock star status-I'll go see if I can find the post,and she was being asked about that.
And I was waiting for someone to do a story on his *rock star status*
He is very much loved and its a story,so they ran with it.It was bound to happen

 

[justice be served]

The expected bias is conspicuous and extreme. Willmott's questions assume victims are women because she uses those words interchangeably. No other possibility considered. So all her questions launch from that platform. The witness likes everyone and I'm happy for her soul but not for the purposes of this trial. All of ALaV's clients are damaged goods and their outcomes are just a natural progression of what she divines in them. She is obviously a relativist and therefore the notion of judgment on a monstrous crime is anathema to her. We will not find justice in her testimony, merely empathy & understanding. She emphasizes that there are no saints and no villains. Her mind resorts to the developmental continuum and there she finds all her answers. She values highly the framework provided and it is also eminently convenient for the materials she wants to plug in or omit to include. I am left very sad today and I think most of us who follow this case are also sad, as we see and hear Travis's commendable life become a blot. His person, struck & injured every way possible with ringing words stated with credentialed authority from an "expert" under oath.

Beautifully put - thank you for your time and eloquence.

 

[Angelina Frost]

The expected bias is conspicuous and extreme. Willmott's questions assume victims are women because she uses those words interchangeably. No other possibility considered. So all her questions launch from that platform. The witness likes everyone and I'm happy for her soul but not for the purposes of this trial. All of ALaV's clients are damaged goods and their outcomes are just a natural progression of what she divines in them. She is obviously a relativist and therefore the notion of judgment on a monstrous crime is anathema to her. We will not find justice in her testimony, merely empathy & understanding. She emphasizes that there are no saints and no villains. Her mind resorts to the developmental continuum and there she finds all her answers. She values highly the framework provided and it is also eminently convenient for the materials she wants to plug in or omit to include. I am left very sad today and I think most of us who follow this case are also sad, as we see and hear Travis's commendable life become a blot. His person, struck & injured every way possible with ringing words stated with credentialed authority from an "expert" under oath.

Seriously, your posts are like works of art. After a day like today, an even fresher breath of air- thank you.