trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[Sleuth5]

Yes, raisincharlie, I saw a couple of exchanges. I think JA worked on ALV from the beginning. I mean nothing ugly by this, just what I noticed -- I think ALV may have been a bit smitten by JA -- I feel sure JA was on her best behavior and doing her best to show those type "problems" that she thought were appropriate to whatever JA thought was the most mitigating persona to project. I have no idea what that might have been. And ALV's questions or observations to JA may have given JA hints of what dx ALV was trying to construct. And yes, I mentioned a tell earlier, and I really thought I saw a couple.

Exactly so, Borndem. JA could work ALV because she knew what she was looking for...and whenever she wasn't sure, she could easily take cues from ALV's reactions (to which she is incredibly attuned as someone used to reading others for how successfully her lies are working) in order to shape her responses.

With Dr. D, she was totally blindsided. She had no idea what she was looking for, and the fact that she used objective testing made it impossible for her to use her normal manipulative strategies. The diagnosis was all the easier because JA simply reverted to her default behavioral strategies and in the process revealed her true self.

No wonder she colored all day yesterday. Must have been seething with resentment at her inability to snow this person.

:cow:

 

[numnut]

I said this yesterday but to ME she looks and talks like Amy Lee of Evanesces (the band). https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....54.341.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.9.img.owDbn-NZmvo

This is a fav band of mine, so I have heard numerous interviews with Amy...and DD's mouth and eyes and how she speaks is spot on.

She reminds me of a young brunette Heather Locklear.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

There has to be a method to Juan's madness. I haven't figured out what it is but I just know there's a reason for it.
BBM

Believe it or not, trial lawyers do study psychology. Jurors are more likely to pay attention to and retain information if they are presented with a visual instead of just listening to testimony. Further, an attorney writing something instead of presented a pre-prepared sheet makes it a bit more interactive, which increases attention and retention even more. The fact that they may have had to strain a bit to read Juan's handwriting (which was not totally illegible and tracked the witness' testimony verbatim) made them pay attention even more. I suspect most of the potential jurors have that overhead presentation in their notebooks. :rocker:

 

[HarvestMoon]

Morning everyone! You all were busy last night and I am just catching up!

What made me really steamed was Wilmott asking Jodi (in that whiny high pitched patronizing tone) "so, you gave this speech to middle schoolers?" She knew better!

Wilmot really needs time off, or is that a time out ? She's in too deep.

 

[Lorelilly]

People here keep referring to age. I don't think it's age per se. I think JW is focused on experience, which can be a function of age. But she is right, dr d has fewer years of experience, and when she went through the CV, it surprised me a little compared to the vast knowledge she displayed on direct. However, her academic/educational background and training seem very impressive, and she is current on the science /protocols behind evaluation. She also seems to have moved very (unusually) quickly into managerial/supervisory capacities, which is interesting.

She knows her stuff, and is very confident. But I'm surprised most others didn't notice a perceptible change in demeanor once Juan was done and JW got up to bat. I felt immediate vibes, like a "prickliness" from Dr d. Nothing like the flagrant and bizarre behavior of ALV, but a definite attitude, which is not the end of the world as she's still extremely credible. But I found that bit of attitude disappointing, and hope it's gone today, especially when they "get into it" on substantive issues (if JW can get to any).

Did no one else notice?

My take...listen, JW looked ... (swear word) ... unprepared. It took her 25 minutes to finally figure out WHAT Dr D IS. A Doctor? A PhD.? An Astronaut? The Dr is in and she's doing just fine.

 

[bobloblaw]

anyone have the AZ link? I cannot get it working. They run commercials, then I get nothing.

Why is that cat wearing high heels and lipstick? :what:

 

[RadarLuv]

http://www.azcentral.com/video/1724204566001"]

Thanks H.O.

 

[QueenD]

Can Jodi claim incompetent defense? LOL.. Seriously...

I am sure that will be her first filing after she is convicted.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I always wondered if JW is actually taking notes or is it just a strategy to appear uninterested in what JM and the witness are doing.

Goooood Morning all ! I am anxious to hear today's testimony - possibly a long drawn out cross, and a 10 min re-direct to clear everything back up!! Then on to the next rebuttal witness!!!

As to JA and her writing. It really looks to me as if she is copying something. I'm dying to know what it is. YES, I AM SNOOPY

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like JW in any way. But yesterday, I truly felt sorry for her. It was painful to watch, she was embarrassing herself so badly.

:seeya: You are to kind, because I would never feel sorry for JW ...

JMO ... but I think Willmott embarrassed herself when she and KN hired Samuels and Alyce as "experts" ... what a "mistake" that was ...

JMO ... but Willmott and Nurmi should have NEVER gone along with Jodi's LIES about Travis' abusing her and being a 'ped' ...

That was WRONG ... and I just cannot even feel an ounce of sympathy for anyone who supports Jodi's lies about Travis because of what he went through because of Jodi !

:moo:

 

[DebinGA]

because some people are visual 'learners' and some are audio learners. Each topic is repeated SEVERAL times as he writes it out.

He is making sure every juror hears AND sees each of these pieces of the puzzle.

I think it is a great strategy.


JMO

I agree, but only if the print is readable to all the jurors. JM's writing is too small imo, which is the only speck of imperfection I've detected so far.

 

[gauntlet]

Afternoon!

I can't say much about what I thought of JW yesterday but none of it is positive or sympathetic. I knew they would come out attacking Dr D's age and experience but didn't expect it would be as bad as that. I wonder how Nurmi would have done. He qualified in 2001 incidentally.

At least Dr D knows what she is in for today!

Useless fact of the day - Nurmi's first name is Laurence.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Wow! Is that true? I'm the only living American who didn't follow the OJ case. Why would she do that? Just for the $$$$? Or is she nuts?

Yes, it's true. There was a lot of anger about it at the time. I suspect she did it for both the money and the publicity. I think it backfired on her, big time.

 

[RadarLuv]

Why is that cat wearing high heels and lipstick? :what:

That's how she rolls.

 

[coup de grace]

I'm just now listening to the cross of Dr. D. Man JW does not come across smart at all.

JW: "So your education doesn't matter?"

JD: "Of course it matters."

JW: "Well you just said your experience matters."

Are you kidding JW? Both can't matter in your mind? :banghead:

LOL I'm wondering how well JW would do on the logic/reasoning and thinking fast on your feet portions of the WAIS?

I am very,very impressed with Dr. D and how Juan is handling rebuttal thus far. He gets a gold star!! Can't wait for court to begin today!

 

[Arabian Girl]

Can Jodi claim incompetent defense? LOL.. Seriously...

Too funny!! That's what the LAST Motion for Mistrial was!!! Ineffective defense!!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[a/k/a me]

Yes, it certainly appeared that way. A good lawyer will have their cross prepared before trial. She had Dr. DeMarte's report and her CV months ago. Of course you add in stuff that came up on direct, but the basic cross should have already been prepared. That said, trials are a boatload of work for lawyers on both sides. It's incredibly stressful, which is perhaps why JW is losing her hair.

BBM and JW is supposively teaching other lawyers of trial techniques?
How can this be ???

 

[Whack A Mole]

anyone have the AZ link? I cannot get it working. They run commercials, then I get nothing.

I stream this one...works pretty good.
http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=202212&BannerId=916

 

[Lorelilly]

Just pointing out that 32 years old IS very, very young for a testifying "expert." Most experts are at least in their 40's and usually in their 50's and older. The idea being that one is not an expert until they've had quite a bit of practical experience and become established in their field. I didn't watch the testimony yesterday, so this isn't a commentary on how this witness did, at all. Just sayin'...I'm seeing posters get onto the defense for pointing out her age and lack of practical experience, but that IS what makes one an expert -- among other things. Any defense in any case would do this and it would be justified since experience is something the jury should definitely consider in evaluating an expert's testimony. Imo, particularly in a highly interactive and subjective field such as psych. All jmo.

Well if Experience is what matters, Dr Samuels and ALV had that in Spades...and look what their Experience brought to this case.

 

[Whack A Mole]

Seal up.