trial day 43: the defense continues its case in chief #129

[lil_buddy]

Alyce describes in a talk on youtube a "petroglyph" of a woman in labor tugging on rope tied to her mates genitalia
AND
is in a "domestic partnership" with a woman
AND
is old-fashioned.

 

[kaRN]

if alv doesn't agree to concede to the possibility then that speaks volumes to me. Of course it is possible. Why won't she just admit it? Denying it will show her bias.

exactly!!

 

[SassyMom]

It's a good thing the defense team wore purple and dark colors....the bruising won't show.

Poor Alyse wore red, indicating the effects of the verbal assault she received and how poorly she defended herself.

 

[JayB12]

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. She has a built in bias about it, not because TA used it to circumvent a big sin.

BOOM goes the dynamite! :great:

Right...but you'd think ALV would have explored the issue more like...did JA do it with other BFs, admit she enjoyed it or initiated it, etc.

Seems odd that she didn't probe this issue further. Just threw up the "I'm old fashioned" screen.

 

[gcharlie]

MissHathaway ‏@MissHathaway 1m

Now that we're enduring Alyce-on-a-Mission, I look back and find Samuels charming in his bumbling, besotted sort of way. #JodiArias

 

[ziggy]

Was it? I thought he did get to use it. My initial gut-reaction response on the legal thread was that it would be inadmissible. Then I read wenwe4's summaries and thought he did get to use it, so I went back and read Rule 608 and thought, well, actually it should be admissible...

Oh! Wait! I see the problem, I think. The tape would be hearsay. Her dad should be able to testify about it, and if he lies the tape could be played to impeach him, but playing the tape before dad gets on the stand is a problem.

Thanks AZL... And if this is similar to CA law, even if he is unavailable to testify due to his illness, the prosecution can only use use prior sworn testimony such as a deposition right??? Same in AZ?

 

[HarvestMoon]

Well that is the morning session over.....a few statistics:

Expected court time 170 minutes.:great:
Actual court time 126 minutes. :what:
Total time that jury was present 108 minutes. :fence:
Total time that testimony was heard 81 minutes. :what:
Total sidebars 15. :banghead:
Longest continuous testimony without interruption 14 minutes. :what:
Average testimony without interruption 6.2 minutes. :woohoo:
Total objections 38. :banghead:
Average testimony without objection 2.1 minutes. :seeya:

:moo:

Do you by chance know how many billing hours, ALV has racked up, from this circus ... ahem expert evaluation/testimony ?

 

[RadarLuv]

Was it? I thought he did get to use it. My initial gut-reaction response on the legal thread was that it would be inadmissible. Then I read wenwe4's summaries and thought he did get to use it, so I went back and read Rule 608 and thought, well, actually it should be admissible...

Oh! Wait! I see the problem, I think. The tape would be hearsay. Her dad should be able to testify about it, and if he lies the tape could be played to impeach him, but playing the tape before dad gets on the stand is a problem.

I thought there was a moment when they were arguing that 9 seconds was taking out of context. Then Det F left the courtroom. I was speculating that it was to retrieve the full dvd. Is it possible that it could be played in full later??

 

[Pink Panther]

Well that is the morning session over.....a few statistics:

Expected court time 170 minutes.:great:
Actual court time 126 minutes. :what:
Total time that jury was present 108 minutes. :fence:
Total time that testimony was heard 81 minutes. :what:
Total sidebars 15. :banghead:
Longest continuous testimony without interruption 14 minutes. :what:
Average testimony without interruption 6.2 minutes. :woohoo:
Total objections 38. :banghead:
Average testimony without objection 2.1 minutes. :seeya:

:moo:

Did you really time these?

:what:

 

[Zuri]

Is the reason there are so many sidebars because speaking objections are not "allowed" by the judge? Would they prejudice the jury if they were allowed?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Note the height difference.

I noticed that yesterday. WOW. JA's chair must be almost touching the ground......:banghead:

 

[Sleuth5]

Only there is a big, huge problem there too which LaViolette is neglecting. (A shock, I know.)

Jodi lights up with glee depicting sexual acts I think she initially wanted viewed as consistent with demeaning, degrading, humiliating sex sometimes found in conjunction with domestic violence. Such actual acts though, in my experience, are often the most difficult for survivors to process and work through. So much so I've only openly talked about my own once to my beloved husband in a total of nearly seven years - only to tell him I couldn't and wouldn't discuss it.

:seeya:

 

[eLeL724]

About JA and her own self comparison to her brain being as smart as Einstein's.... I just wanted to comment and say Einstein would have NEVER been so stupid as to use such a ridiculous and nonsensical defense as JA has chosen to use. Once the jury comes back with the "Guilty" verdict and she is sitting LIPWOP or on DR, JA might have a change of heart in regards to her own intelligence.

 

[nursebeeme]

Next thread for today is open. Please move over. This thread will close in about 5 minutes

trial day 43: the defense continues its case in chief #130 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community​

:seeya:

 

[curious girl]

Hi guys, coming out of lurkdom in this case :seeya:

So the court just heard that Travis was not the only guy Jodi had (or attempted) anal sex with, blows a little hole in her sexual deviant claim IMO. Is there a chance the jury is starting to wonder if she's projecting things from previous relationships onto the one she had with Travis (aka lying). I think Martinez planted that seed when he raised suspicion about her working in a restaurant and people coming to tell her that a boyfriend is cheating in two seperate relationships. Isn't it a little suspicious that she claims she had anal sex with two boyfriends and she didn't like it? Yet Travis is supposed to be the super sexual one. I think that's partly why Martinez wanted that played and DT didn't.

Can you imagine how many sidebars and objections there would be if Martinez had the manifesto?

 

[DairyGirl]

This just kills me.. I am old fashioned. Probably too much so, however if my job was to decide on cases where often, SEX forcible sex, or anal sex was part of the abuse suffered by victims, I would be dang well schooled in it and be able to discuss it..

I think personally that she is not a domestic violence expert but a woman who does not particularly like men and made this her profession to "get" them.

This to me is evident in that all the impartial evidence points to JODI being the aggressor and stalked and Travis was the victim and she can not see that.. She is to blinded by her own feelings.

She is blinded by $$$$$

 

[lonetraveler]

65. Certainly not old from where I sit on the "continuum!"

Hey, ALV was in her late teens,early twenties during the late 60's, early 70's, she can't be that ignorant. That was a time for "make love, not war", wild time.

 

[katydid23]

Was it? I thought he did get to use it. My initial gut-reaction response on the legal thread was that it would be inadmissible. Then I read wenwe4's summaries and thought he did get to use it, so I went back and read Rule 608 and thought, well, actually it should be admissible...

Oh! Wait! I see the problem, I think. The tape would be hearsay. Her dad should be able to testify about it, and if he lies the tape could be played to impeach him, but playing the tape before dad gets on the stand is a problem.

They played part of the dad's interview for the witness, but they removed the jury. We are not sure if they are going to play it again w/the jury present though.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

She is clearly uncomfortable about sex and admits not asking Jodi about things sexual in the case because she is old fashioned and not comfortable asking. She read about them.

woah.. ok, hmmm.

 

[DairyGirl]

Then she changed it to "homicide" LOL

At least she didn't say he passed away.