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

[katiedid2]

Good morning, everyone! Let's hope Willmott is done with LaV soon and we can get on to the jury questions!

Yeah I'm excited to get to the jury questions. I can't believe how long this trial is lasting.:seeya:

 

[Donnareit]

yep 10:30

Actually, that's the normal time. Looking forward to around 11 to 11:30.

 

[Tulessa]

A heartfelt thanks to the Mods, for all of their hard work and dedication. Also, thank you for cleaning our dirty diapers! :floorlaugh: I think we eat a lot of beans while posting! :floorlaugh:

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I'd like a bit of clarification re what's disparaging too. That said, I just went back and viewed my old posts and a few of them I realised needed to go.

To see all your posts, click on your user ID (top right) > Statistics > Find all posts by you. Messages you can't delete you can hit the little red triangle in the top right corner. Self-reporting is so 2013

Thank you! I was wondering how to do that! :loveyou:

 

[Sleuth5]

Re-posting, doors closed on me! I am also editing to clarify that I am not talking about WS...I am talking about the histrionic reports in the media today about the scourge of social media on ALV and the DT, in addition to the DT's mistrial motion.

I wouldn't call any of what is happening on social media and in the media witness tampering. I also don't feel bad in the slightest for ALV or the DT. From a historical perspective, the purpose of an open court is that "justice is not done in the dark."

Justice would not be done if ALV and the DT were allowed to trash the good name of the victim for an admitted murderer which could lead to her acquittal or a lesser punishment than the community (as represented by the jury) feels that she deserves.

Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not necessarily the right way to express outrage over these proceedings, but the community has a right to express themselves. The limitations on those rights come only when someone could be done actual physical harm. Otherwise, no one ever died from hurt feelings and panic attacks.

If ALV did not want to be exposed then she should have turned the case down like the 11 other experts. If she wanted to continue on in her career as she had before, then she should have opted out. If the DT did not want to be exposed to ridicule for their tactics, then they should have tried this case honorably like so many other defense attorneys do for reprehensible clients every day. Since they chose not to, the chickens are coming home to roost and hopefully future hacks, quacks and hired guns will think more of themselves then to "de-edify' the judicial process.

Truth is not found in dark spaces or back rooms...sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

Bravo! :goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Steft50]

For those in the know, which certainly isn't me, where did the info come from that LVA is the 11th-12th DV approached about assessing JA? tia!!

 

[Tulessa]

I am seriously reviewing my thoughts here re: posts I have made and would probably make. To follow the rules to not make disparaging remarks I will only be able to post about JM and the PT. Any post I would make about the DT or their witnesses would be considered disparaging.
My silence will be golden. I appreciate this site too much to put my membership here in any jeopardy, no matter what I may think about the source of the issue.
Thank you mods. I appreciate your positions and will abide by the rules.

Ditto sweetie!

 

[livelife]

Posted thes in the timline thread just now but thought you'all might appreciate them...
NOTE: This layout appears to be the opposite of TA's layout. Thought I would post these comp pics of what the bedroom/bathroom/closet layout was in TA's house. Msg me if any issues.

 

[gauntlet]

A heartfelt thanks to the Mods, for all of their hard work and dedication. Also, thank you for cleaning our dirty diapers! :floorlaugh: I think we eat a lot of beans while posting! :floorlaugh:

I think I need to pop an extra Ritalin Then the order might be think then type rather than type then think. Unfortunately I'm the same in real life too. My mouth starts and then my brain catches up.

 

[grammieto5]

Hey Popsicle, Good morning in your post from the last thread you asked how Donovan could talk to JA in the morning before trial. In my post I wrote "morning", it should have been "evening". I did go back and change it

 

[ShadyLady]

That is all spot on, but my problem with ALV starts at the point where she refuses to believe there is a possibility she may have been manipulated. A professional would want to consider that.

I'd like to know the context your friends have seen ALV in. I doubt it's this one. Seminar speaker and expert evaluator/witness are worlds apart.

For me it's more than that...it's ALV's changing testimony, all pro-defense. And

why not just answer the questions? What is she afraid of, being wrong in public?

 

[VALee]

Can someone direct me to where I might be able to see ja journals????? TIA

Maricopa County Courthouse, but you'll have to wait in a really long line :fence:

no seriously, all that has been released is assorted images, HLN I thought said they had 600 pages or that abc does, but nobody has posted everything yet that I know of.

 

[G&AMom]

I believe they spell it rulzes here..lol

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Hey, ATL, I'm glad you're here. I posted a comment (questions, really) about one of your posts just as the last thread was closing -- don't know if you saw it or were able to reply. Let's see if I can find it.

Evidence may be marked as an exhibit, but not entered as an exhibit. Both have a number. expert may refer to something that is marked as an exhibit for the expert to review, but not entered for the jurors review in the entirety.

So I found this really confusing. That means that ALV, for example, can refer to something in an email or text, but the jurors never get to see the message themselves? Why do you think they do that? Is it prejudicial or something?

 

[Litigatrix]

For those in the know, which certainly isn't me, where did the info come from that LVA is the 11th-12th DV approached about assessing JA? tia!!

I heard this here! Someone let me know if I am wrong...I don't want to "mis-speak"!

 

[Sleuth5]

I say folks, I might add that I have a sneaking feeling that the real problem the DT has with some of these "social media" outlets is that the hard-hitting and incisive comments made by some of those "lazy couch potatoes" hits just a little too close to home. I shall leave it at that.

 

[minazoe]

what I hear from AVL is fairly simple and unimpeachable...

there has to be domestic violence because travis died a violent death...

this is the only reason she could possibly convince herself to take the case...she always goes by the "where there's smoke" philosophy.

so she can call it DV without any real evidence...

does that make sense or has my mind finally been twisted into a pretzel shape?

 

[JayB12]

Could you please define disparaging remarks? Is it ok to comment about their performance or conflicts in testimony but not dress or looking haggard? I am sincerely confused. Can I say that a witness is unprofessional but shouldn't say that she is a disgrace to her profession?

I am not sure what you are talking about eliminating. Sorry to be obtuse!

The way I understand things...

Just have to avoid the blatant name calling (i.e., *advertiser censored*, nutjob, etc.) or name variations (i.e., malyce, Wilma, etc.). Those types of things force the mods to snip posts and do more work than necessary.

Comments about tactics, procedures, professionalism, etc. are OK unless you add something which makes it more personal. Willmott acting unprofessional with her objections, comments, and reactions is fine. Taking it one step further to say that she is a disgrace to the profession is not.

It may be helpful for a guide, such as the one above, that will help posters understand what can, and cannot, be posted. I may be off on my understanding as well.

 

[gauntlet]

Plus, she's not supposed to be reading anything about the case, or talking with anyone about the case, so how is people expressing their negative feelings and opinions of her in any way intimidating? I'll follow the rules to the best of my ability, I promise.

ALV and/her publisher would be getting notification of the reviews. Also, if people are calling her or the places she has on her schedule to speak at, she'd still hear what's happening.

 

[Tulessa]

We are allowing the link to the articles about cyberstalking and witness intimidation so that you may see the severity of the problem we're facing.

This is NOT an open invitation to express your views on the matter one way or the other.

If you have made disparaging remarks about the defense team or their witnesses, go back and delete your comments or alert the post and ask that a moderator delete it for you.

In the past week, we've been issuing 24-timeouts for name calling and disparaging remarks. Future timeouts for this type of violation will be extended to include at least 3 days of trial coverage.

Please check your posts now.

Thank you.

I checked. I'm good. I don't even talk about people in the real world. I've lived too long to start now. That's just not the way I was raised. Thank you Mama. Love and miss you.

 

[shadedwillows]

Re-posting, doors closed on me!

I wouldn't call any of what is happening on social media and in the media witness tampering. I also don't feel bad in the slightest for ALV or the DT. From a historical perspective, the purpose of an open court is that "justice is not done in the dark."

Justice would not be done if ALV and the DT were allowed to trash the good name of the victim for an admitted murderer which could lead to her acquittal or a lesser punishment than the community (as represented by the jury) feels that she deserves.

Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not necessarily the right way to express outrage over these proceedings, but the community has a right to express themselves. The limitations on those rights come only when someone could be done actual physical harm. Otherwise, no one ever died from hurt feelings and panic attacks.

If ALV did not want to be exposed then she should have turned the case down like the 11 other experts. If she wanted to continue on in her career as she had before, then she should have opted out. If the DT did not want to be exposed to ridicule for their tactics, then they should have tried this case honorably like so many other defense attorneys do for reprehensible clients every day. Since they chose not to, the chickens are coming home to roost and hopefully future hacks, quacks and hired guns will think more of themselves then to "de-edify' the judicial process.

Truth is not found in dark spaces or back rooms...sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BBM.
I had no idea that 11 other experts had turned this case down...yowza!

Ordinarily, I would have just posted the part that I've bolded. However, IMO
your post was most excellent.

In the interest of bandwidth space I promise to cooperate in making this site run a bit smoother and just bold what I feel is the most significant part of the post.

OT for just a moment...many thanks to those who have encouraged me to join as a member. I've read some friendly posts while perusing this website and I did take note of your kind offers.
This website exceeds all others regarding crime.