trial day 45: the defense continues its case in chief #135

[Linda7NJ]

I think calling what she called what sge did in this case an "investigation" is laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marlap]

I got a very bad feeling from that story of her watching Travis and Nap, too. Really makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!

I think she's delighted in sharing a true moment from her crime--a creepy look through Jodi the Murderer's eyes--stalking Travis that morning.

The other thing that has always bothered me is how she points to the last picture of Travis' face in the shower, the one where he looks terrorized, and tells Det. Flores' glibly: "He didn't like that one, but it's my favorite" True Evil Incarnate.

Her favorite.....ewwwwww. Great observation!

Especially since we all know Travis never even had time to see that photo!

 

[G&AMom]

Definitely easy to understand the rule about not discussing religion. I've steered clear even though I do have some questions about the LDS folks. I just don't view those questions as being that important to the trial.

It is difficult, based on the antics of the DT, Arias and their witnesses, not to get frustrated and let it show through in posts. I would guess the main purpose of filtering the negative comments is to retain the integrity of the boards since I'm sure things could get really, really bad if people just posted what they are thinking as this unfolds.

In my opinion, the worst thing about unmoderated boards isn't the name calling or the bad language. It's that those boards can be totally hijacked by people with agendas and become totally useless. Trying looking at an unmoderated board about Scientology, for example.

I really value the different viewpoints here. Unlike a certain witness, I freely admit there are points I didn't consider and that I could be wrong. I've changed my mind about a number of things just by reading here. I would really hate to lose that.

 

[prima.facie]

Good morning all! Got to study before the trial, but a quick note on ALV:

I think she has likely been competent evaluating and treating those who have been truly been abused. But, I get the feeling she has never experienced a sociopath such as JA before, and she has finally come to grips with the fact that she got duped--either by JA's ability to manipulate, or by her own failure to connect the dots. That seems clear given the change in her demeanor since she first began testifying.

So, in one respect, I do feel for her if she truly believed JA was abused, given the limited evidence that the DT gave her. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that she didn't have the wherewithal to access the abundance of premeditation evidence that exists, or all of the other collateral evidence that makes it pretty clear that JA is a serial liar and master manipulator. Maybe it's simply a case of accepting a case that was a bit too outside her skill set.

IDK, I guess I am torn. But, if I could prove she lied about "misspeaking" about the pedo computer/analogue pic thing, then I would definitely have to rewrite this post.:twocents:

If that is the case, why continue the charade? I don't buy it. (no offense to your opinion!!) Why not cooperate with JM? Why not finally be truthful and say that there is CLEAR & OBVIOUS evidence that Jodi was the stalker and abuser? She has the power to do so. She chooses not. She chooses to doublespeak. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. A list can be made of Jodi's errors and travis [alleged] errors (which are the same, minus the murder such as dating, sexual desire, etc) and she will say Jodi is good, travis is bad. She does not fairly assess the global aspect of their relationship.

She has her foot firmly planted in the ground and is not budging even a tiny bit. Absolute refusal to acknowledge the truth before her. The charade continues.

No pity.

 

[kayice]

Jodi's lies are now destroying ALV's career (she allowed herself to get duped on behalf of money and fame though) just like Jodi set out to destroy Travis and then, his family and friends. That's what narcissistic sociopaths do.

 

[Truth Detector]

Can I post something like...." Is that smoke I see rising from her pants? I think her pants are about to catch fire from all the lies"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[video=youtube;FDTWsMaIHLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDTWsMaIHLE[/video]

 

[gitana1]

Morning all!!!
I agree with upthread posters....can someone give an example of what would be would considered disparaging and an example ofwhat would be considered amusing but not harmful.

?
Pretty please

What have I missed this morning? Gee!!!

Name calling is disparaging. If you heard your child say what you want to say about the witness or whoever, to another, little child, would it be a reasonable, direct criticism or would it be something you would admonish your child for saying, "Hey, that's not nice. We don't talk like that to other people."

That's my unprofessional interpretation of "disparaging."

 

[QueenD]

Are we starting late again?

 

[Tulessa]

Love it! You go Stephen!

OOPS I found a pic of a family member giving JA the bird.

 

[perfectvirgo]

I totally agree. Alv had the opportunity to interview other people in this case and chose not to. At best her assessment is incomplete, at worst it's dishonest.

And, IMO, it's 2013 and like it or not, social media with its real time transfer of information reaching far and wide is our reality. I have seen terrible things stated about the victim, his family, the prosecutor and others. Alv took this case willingly, was/is paid handsomely and unfortunately has to suffer the consequences of her decision. Additionally, she openly tries to mock a man who is doing his job to serve the people of Arizona. Others suffer through no fault or effort of their own making. I'll keep my sympathy for them only.

Agreed. I can have no sympathy for someone whose colours I believe were nailed to the defendant's mast from the outset. ALV began her meeting with JA with an apology. She should have begun with a poised pencil and, "now tell me your side."

Who bases life and death testimony on text messages, journals and the word of a known and self-confessed liar? Where were the corroborating interviews? Astonishing.

Reputation and career potentially sacrificed at the altar of Arias.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Anyone know how much JM is getting paid for his time on this case?

Please don't tell me it is anything less than the DT rate.

He is on salary, not an hourly rate of pay. Whatever the current rate is for his position...

 

[jellybeanz]

So, today the defence team are wearing salmon.

Wildabouttrial tweeted that Tanisha was wearing a salmon top.

I really hope this was a coincidence, but if I were Tanisha I would not be wanting to sit there in the same colours as them. I would have to go change, or completely cover that colour up.

 

[SunnyinMO]

WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
Counsel is headed to chambers. Courtroom is very loud still with chatter. #JodiArias
Expand
2m
WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial
Valerie just instructed the media and spectator section that no food or cups of liquid are allowed in. My gatorade G2 is ok. #JodiArias
ReplyRetweetFavorite

 

[gauntlet]

I can't understand why Juan didn't show her photos of the injuries on Travis's body.

Maybe recross!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wondered too first but with ALV responding as she was, perhaps Juan thought it would be better to just finish up with that quote about JA being the worst thing that happened to Travis. Travis' family would have also been upset. I suspect he just chose to for some of the main points which then leaves JW less to recross on, then after the questions and the new last witness, they can get on with rebuttal.

 

[tss]

This is why I think expert witnesses should be hired by and paid for by the court. No allegiance to either side. Nothing to gain in being biased. The way experts manipulate things to make a case for their "client" (the lawyer that hires them) is shameful. It's become so blatant as to be laughable. It makes a mockery of our legal system and something has to change.

Yes, take Samuels for example. He didn't record, and I don't believe he would have needed to say he was recording, but that's beside the point. IMHO Recording should have been mandatory, especially if its on the Taxpayer's expense

ALV knew what to expect. On her first day JW asks her if she, ALV, has a Private practice, she responds with, "I Hope so, when I get back".....makes you wonder

If you care to view it its at the very end of this youtube at the 1:04:40 min mark

[video=youtube;jU5ooZH3yxs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU5ooZH3yxs[/video]

 

[Tipstaff]

So, will ALV be successful in planting her evaluation -- i.e. B.S.* -- in the minds of the jurors?






*Battered-woman Syndrome

ALV will get questions from the jurors but by the time the jurors get to deliberations calm and reasonable heads will prevail and the question about JA and the gas cans, and the 1000 mile trip and grandpa's gun and more will all be back on the front burner and ALV will be but a memory for the jurors.

TA will be remembered as the victim no the defendant.

 

[lucegirl]

The thing that bothers me the most about ALV is something slightly different than bias -- it's similar -- but she is predisposed to find DV. She could put any relationship on her continuum. I would ask her if she has ever evaluated a case where abuse was claimed by a woman and she found otherwise, ie, manipulation?

 

[SusieD]

Originally Posted by lil_buddy
Instead of personally tormenting these "expert" witnesses, I wish we could use the force of numbers to get REAL court reform.
Either have psych testimony completely disallowed since it is not scientific, or figure out a way to have a single neutral expert.

The system is the one at fault here - it gives these people a platform, a means to bolster their egos and believe their opinion is of value. It also gives them dump trucks full of money.

How about making it a requirement that experts be approved by both sides and prepared by both sides? That way we'd be sure nobody comes in with a distorted set of facts/evidence.

I suggest having the courts administer expert witnesses and that those experts have no idea who they will be testifying for.

 

[nursebeeme]

CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvptve/cvpstream1?hpt=hp_livenow#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1

:lol: I changed my avatar and didn't recognize my newest post :lol:

I didn't recognize you either bette!!!:seeya:

 

[ttcRider]

I dont understand why all the TH's keep saying that JM is going to 'turn off' some of the jurors by his 'style'.... Don't most people know that JM is doing his job and expect that? I don't ever recall a prosecuter being warm and fuzzy with witnesses? This was a brutal murder fgs. Its not a parking ticket. :banghead: