Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Did you really time these?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:
Note the height difference.
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.
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
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.
65. Certainly not old from where I sit on the "continuum!"
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.
Then she changed it to "homicide" LOL