trial day 43: the defense continues its case in chief #131

[Sleuth5]

Good Morning Sleuthers! :seeya::coffeews:

 

[rose222]

She said that? Was itt the morning or afternnoon session?

Start watching at 0:49:30

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSIB_bDCeCE"]Jodi Arias Trial - Day 43 - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM - she called it a "homicide". That's a generic term in the dictionary, but the average person on the street probably thinks it means murder.

She said 'murder' and she has said it more than once.

The truth slipped in among her combativeness.

IMO

 

[Boodles]

Great catch! I wondered why Mike B wasn't asked to read back.

No, I think Juan said it first, at 8:39 in that link. Not that it really matters. (I think JM is fantastic, but let's face it, he does use bullying as a control tactic sometimes.)

 

[corundogs]

I just rewatched the "time out" part.

I now know why I was so confused when it happened...because I was listening live, and had no trouble hearing ALV say it.

What I couldn't figure out at the time - and again, now I know why - was what prompted it.

It almost sounds like it was a rehearsed comment on her part, and she just threw it out when she felt like it. Juan wasn't really doing anything to prompt it, IMO!

He has been much more combative and antagonistic with her...not to say that's bad, because IMO Juan responds to the witness. When she is combative and antagonistic, so is he. But he wasn't digging or anything at that time.

It's just WEIRD! Like has been mentioned, if I was in a group setting and the "leader" of the group told me I needed a time out, I would probably laugh in her face!!!!!

WHO ARE YOU to tell me, as an adult, that I need to do ANYTHING????

I was telling my Dad last night that I don't understand people who have no respect for this process, and the players involved. I for one am scared of police officers and others who have direct authority of me. Well maybe "scared" is too strong of a word. But I defintely watch what I am doing and what I say, more so than if they weren't there.

I think that's normal...but I see way too often people who aren't. Talking back, disrespecting in other ways. It just makes me wonder where that respect for authority was lost.

 

[chakti]

Excerpt from Monday's minutes (4/8/13):

"4:33 p.m. Court and Counsel convene in chambers; also present are the Defendant and
next of kin.

Discussion is held"

The guy in the jeans and blue/yellow shirt at the end of the day was JA's brother??

Has this been discussed anywhere?

NO, what , where ????

 

[TexMex]

She said 'murder' and she has said it more than once.

The truth slipped in among her combativeness.

IMO

Yes...she also said "crime" and of course the defense position was there was no crime because it was self defense
:seeya:

 

[rose222]

No, I think Juan said it first, at 8:39 in that link.

Yes. JM was the first one to bring up the word 'afflicted'

 

[minazoe]

I understood the reason she gave, that it was apologizing for having to breech her privacy by reading her journals but it STILL show bias. You wouldn't apologize to a vicious murderer for reading their journals in your effort to save them from death row, but you would apologize for it to a poor helpless victim of DV and circumstance.

I wouldn't apologize to Jodi Arias for Jack ----. :jail:

 

[laniefi]

:seeya: Mornin' folks!!!

 

[Schuby]

I am no expert on DV, but something ALV discussed at one point on direct got me thinking. She testified about how in the DV "world" experts are beginning to expand their definition of DV to include more non-physical "attacks" such as verbal and psychological or emotional abuse. IMO she testified about this to cover the bases in case the jury decides to throw out JA's claims of physical abuse because of no corroborating evidence - then ALV can still fall back on the alleged non-physical abuse by TA and still try to claim JA was a DV victim.
My thought on this is that if ALV (and other DV experts) are widening the definition of DV to include non-physical behaviors, then it would surely follow that the stats on male-on-female and female-on-male DV would dramatically change. IMO in general (not in all individual cases) males and females express control and anger and fear in different ways; males stereotypically are more physical and females stereotypically tend towards passive aggressive behaviors (crying, withdrawing/withholding, manipulating etc. - sound familiar, JA?!).
So, if current DV stats (which are probably based on studies from more than 2 years ago anyway) are reporting DV stats based on physical abuse then it would follow that of course male-on-female rates are higher (this doesn't even take into account the factor that men who are abused physically by a woman likely have a lower rate of reporting it due to societal pressures). IIRC ALV on direct claimed that non-physical abuse can be "more damaging" than physical (again, she wanted to be sure that if the jury rejects JA's claims of physical abuse, they might still consider the "more damaging" non-physical abuse and put JA in the DV victim category anyway). Since women in general (IMO) tend towards more non-physical tactics, if studies start including non-physical abuse in their stats then it seems there would be a sharp rise in the rate of DV of the women-on-men type.
Didn't realize I was rambling on so long.... my apologies!

I know a lot of people feel otherwise, but I have a real problem with referring to non physical abuse as domestic violence. Call it abuse, violence is something different.

 

[kwmred]

BBM - she called it a "homicide". That's a generic term in the dictionary, but the average person on the street probably thinks it means murder.

I'm pretty sure she did use the word "murder" at one point yesterday. Then later she used "homicide."

 

[Bravo]

"Used" is exactly the word I was searching for! I wonder if we got her alone at El Torito over a nice margarita she wouldn't just say "what the heck just happened to me..."

Sure she was being used. However in my opinion she allowed it. She knew her work was biased and shoddy. It is what it is. IMO

 

[bsk]

Nope, ALV said the word "murder." I heard it too.

If so, I missed it. I know she said 'homicide' once or twice. I also caught today that I missed yesterday that JM used 'murder' as part of a question ("...five days after the murder..."). JW shockingly failed to object and ALV didn't bat an eye.

 

[EGirl]

Does anyone have a clip of JA sustaining JW's objection yesterday?

 

[ClosArgs]

IMO the old-fashioned quote will come back to haunt the defense because Demarte and Juan will paint the DT experts as stuck in the 70s and not keeping up to date with the times. She and Samuels both at 30+ years but nothing new in decades. Demarte should be a refreshing change.

Another refreshing change is I'm willing to be bet DeMarte actually conducted interviews with secondary sources in addition to JA and did not merely rely on the interviews conducted by others.

 

[momof7]

I know a lot of people feel otherwise, but I have a real problem with referring to non physical abuse as domestic violence. Call it abuse, violence is something different.

I am sure there are levels just as in anything. Some verbal abuse is accentuated with violence. My ex liked to accentuate his commentary on what a piece of crap I was with throwing special things at the wall and breaking them.

But there were plenty of times there was no violence. Possible we need a continuim...:what:

Kelly

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya:




:great: One more day closer to Justice for Travis !

 

[Spool]

My sincere hope is that, after an overnight "time out" in which to process the events of the day, the ExpertWitness has awakened with the scales falling from her eyes and a realization that she has been duped by the defendant and the defense team.

Surely she must admit to herself that she did not make her assessment based on The Big Picture, that she did not verify anything the defendant told her, that she read only materials supplied to her by the defense, taken out of context. Her assessment was flawed because of the sin of omission.

I suspect that JA presented herself to ALV as a bright, engaging young woman who was so appreciative of the interest that ALV was taking in her.

I suspect that ALV was charmed by the psychopath, duped by the defense team, and blinded by her domestic violence lenses.

I hope she feels thoroughly ashamed of herself.

 

[minazoe]

I just know the jury sees it the way I do...this woman got paid to make a victim out of Jodi for money, period. End of story...Jodi is entitled to do this...but ALV is not qualified...she's a paper tiger...this isn't DV...it's cold blooded premeditated murder by a cunning psychopath... and I hope we will have real profile of Jodi from a real doctor.

what a waste...