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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
From AZ Central :

11:12 chris Williams@chriswnews

Despite the grilling, sidebars & emotional exchanged I see no #JodiArias jury questions in basket today. Must be clear to #Arias panel


:great: I think they get it ! :great:

But there are jury questions that have already been turned in, per BK.
 
Holy crap! "What does this mean? Did she know she was going to-" I think we, along with the jury, can all fill in the blanks. Even the DV expert thinks it was premeditated. Wow.
 
Now I feel a (teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy) little bit sorry for her. :biggrin:

She asked defense to interview other people and they handed over emails and text messages.

I don't. :seeya: She could have backed out of the case at any time. :twocents:
 
Mr. Martinez:

Mjpfuc0QC6ifTM2T7LA9nkOKx1UA.gif
Mjpfuc0QC6ifTM2T7LA9nkOKx1UA.gif
 
Did ALV just say that there could have been financial restrictions that prevented her from using collateral sources - like she couldn't afford the phone call to Darryl? C'mon!
 
If this judge ever asked for specific objections before the ability to approach this case would be over by now.
 
@WildAboutTrial

People are informing me that someone looks like they are sleeping in the spectator section. Not surprising to me really.
-----

What????????? WAT may have just gone down in my books.
 
I am really afraid to think of how many lives she has ruined with this utterly dishonest nonsense.

Same with Samuels. Disgusting!! I'm sure there have been children involved as well. Sickening. :furious:

Sorry for the O/T. I have zero sympathy for these two "experts".
 
just got home from the doc....please someone tell me what I missed, short form??
 
Too fast here to read....but I have to say....smirking FINALLY wiped off ALV's face...
 
When JM asked her to just tell him if she couldn't answer yes or no and he'd move on, I thought for sure hat was the end of cross. :floorlaugh:
 
Impeachment = If she lies then he can introduce evidence that might otherwise not be admissible to call her on her lie.
yes, that is the big deal and what he just did by introducing a prior statement she made which was otherwise inadmissable. Willmott tried to object to him using it and that's when he said, "I'm impeaching..."

eta: besides the fact that it destroys the witness credibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
1,779
Total visitors
1,992

Forum statistics

Threads
599,814
Messages
18,099,891
Members
230,932
Latest member
Marni
Back
Top