trial day 49: REBUTTAL; #150

[pferrin]

Sounds plausible. She rarely talks to Nurmi. But she would want to come to the aid of her bff, imo.

It is only delaying the inevitable though. Tomorrow, JW is still going to sound like Minnie Mouse on meth. No matter how much frenzied googling JW does tonight, this witness is still going to be a strong advocate for Travis and his grieving family.

Absolutely..because the truth stays the truth no how many ways you ask the question.

 

[Pink Panther]

Really hope JW finishes up quickly with Dr D and there are only a few juror questions. I am so looking forward to the gasoline can witness from Walmart.

I doubt that JW will finish up quickly. The defense's entire strategy throughout this trial has been to beat a dead horse. What they haven't realized is that it really is starting to grate on just about everyone...Today, they thought they had their "gotcha" moment when they got JD to "admit" that her area of expertise was not "battered woman syndrome"...HAH! Too freekin' funny. They've missed the boat entirely. Her role and expertise is to do evaluations. She's not an expert in that particular area (as she readily said she wasn't) but that was not her role in her assessment of JA. She did not come in as a biased "expert" in one iota of mental health. She has a Doctorate in Psychology. She can administer evaluations. Something AVL is not allowed to do. Very different. Kinda' like comparing apples to oranges...

I think I'm finally understanding why JM wrapped it up so quickly! He'll come back to it soon enough.

ETA - For example, let's hypothesize that the defense were claiming that JA's reaction (and supposed justification) for her killing TA in a murderous rage was that she had "schizophrenia"...Is the only person that can speak to this and evaluate and test for this a person who has only studied this particular "disorder"? No. You can have many well-meaning people who have spent a life-time dedicated to studying, helping and treating schizophrenia but most would not probably have the credential to do evaluations to determine this to be a person's true affliction.

moo

 

[livelife]

OT but after many hours of trying to interpret photos taken on June 4, I have to say that for being such a "talented" photographer she sure took some crummy pics that day... It's quite maddening! I'm not just talking about the mystery pics either...

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Anyone still here? Boy, Nancy Grace finally had her BOMBSHELL TONIGHT moment tonight.....I wondered why JW would "dangle" that accusation that Lenore Walker no longer uses the criteria she used to use. (Without backing it up with proof). The witness looked absolutely stunned at that notion, and told her no, she didn't agree and was unaware of that. That got me curious - I started googling and found this: http://lawandjusticegov.org/psychol...he-battered-women-syndrome-questionnaire.html

Then I tried to get a PDF of this questionnaire that was put together by many people including "To gain insight into BWS and its effect on women across cultures, Lenore Walker and colleagues are continuing the validation process for the Revised Battered Woman Syndrome Questionnaire 2003 (BWSQ–3). Given the violence against women as a universal phenomenon, it is essential to interview women from various cultures. Consequently, data from interviews have been gathered from Russia, Spain, Greece, Colombia, and South Florida. Furthermore, the research has recently begun to take into account incarcerated women who report a history of battering relationships".

I couldn't find it but wanted to compare the alleged "new criteria" to LW's former criteria. So I went and did my thing in the kitchen and my husband somehow flipped the channel to Nancy Grace.....I couldn't believe it - She had LW as her guest. LW stated that she STILL uses the same criteria that this witness uses and also went on to say that she has not yet seen anything in this case that relates to BWS to JA but I don't remember her reason for that.

thank you for this, this is huge! I left for a few hours and was going to read tons of pages, this is great!

 

[Lorelilly]

Rocco

Here's what made no sense at all to me today----> JW questioned Dr. D about a test that Dr. Samuels had given Jodi and asked her if she had reviewed the questions . She said she had. Then JW start babbling about the test being copyrighted so the questions wouldn't get out to the public because if everyone knew the questions, the test wouldn't be valid anymore. So far, she makes sense. But then she asks Dr. D if she went over the questions and answers with Juan Martinez and she said yes they looked at them together. Keep in mind, while JW is questioning Dr D., she's holding the form with the questions on them and referring to them and waving them around. So here's where she lost me-----she then asks Dr. D why she would share these questions with the prosecutor when he isn't a psychologist since they are copyrighted. Sooooo--what the heck was she doing with the questions then. She isn't a psychologist either.


I'm bringing this forward from 'Rocco', I apologize I'm not savy enough to know really how to forward things like this.

Rocco this is an EXCELLENT point and I wish I had thought of it myself.

If Juan isn't suppose to have a copy or look at this document then why indeed does the DT have a copy.

Good eye.

JW is going off the deep-end. I'm sure she was trying to make a point but she falls flat most of the time. And my question is, HOW can she complain about Juan having the questions to a test that is a CORNERSTONE of the Defenses case? Does JW think he can't see them because of ("it'll hurt if people see the questions?) that makes no sense. Okay, yesterday JW could NOT get any part of JD's job, titles, schooling, managing, teaching info straight. I was embarrassed for her. But she did it again today. What am I missing? I know JODI doesn't want this case to end but if I were either of her Attorneys I'd want it over stat and then go away for a couple months and lick my wounds. This DT makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[katydid23]

Rocco

Here's what made no sense at all to me today----> JW questioned Dr. D about a test that Dr. Samuels had given Jodi and asked her if she had reviewed the questions . She said she had. Then JW start babbling about the test being copyrighted so the questions wouldn't get out to the public because if everyone knew the questions, the test wouldn't be valid anymore. So far, she makes sense. But then she asks Dr. D if she went over the questions and answers with Juan Martinez and she said yes they looked at them together. Keep in mind, while JW is questioning Dr D., she's holding the form with the questions on them and referring to them and waving them around. So here's where she lost me-----she then asks Dr. D why she would share these questions with the prosecutor when he isn't a psychologist since they are copyrighted. Sooooo--what the heck was she doing with the questions then. She isn't a psychologist either.


I'm bringing this forward from 'Rocco', I apologize I'm not savy enough to know really how to forward things like this.

Rocco this is an EXCELLENT point and I wish I had thought of it myself.

If Juan isn't suppose to have a copy or look at this document then why indeed does the DT have a copy.

Good eye.

And not only was she waving it around, she eventually put it on the overhead, on national television. So she did the EXACT same thing that she accused Juan of doing. :waitasec:

 

[StephanieHartPI]

I wish Mr Martinez could have Lenore Walker herself on the stand

 

[smeck]

I think we should stop feeding into the migraine story----has she been diagnosed with migraines by a Medical Doctor? No more migraine talk...she had a headache thats it!

 

[Words2Serve]

Anyone still here? Boy, Nancy Grace finally had her BOMBSHELL TONIGHT moment tonight.....I wondered why JW would "dangle" that accusation that Lenore Walker no longer uses the criteria she used to use. (Without backing it up with proof). The witness looked absolutely stunned at that notion, and told her no, she didn't agree and was unaware of that. That got me curious - I started googling and found this: http://lawandjusticegov.org/psychol...he-battered-women-syndrome-questionnaire.html

Then I tried to get a PDF of this questionnaire that was put together by many people including "To gain insight into BWS and its effect on women across cultures, Lenore Walker and colleagues are continuing the validation process for the Revised Battered Woman Syndrome Questionnaire 2003 (BWSQ–3). Given the violence against women as a universal phenomenon, it is essential to interview women from various cultures. Consequently, data from interviews have been gathered from Russia, Spain, Greece, Colombia, and South Florida. Furthermore, the research has recently begun to take into account incarcerated women who report a history of battering relationships".

I couldn't find it but wanted to compare the alleged "new criteria" to LW's former criteria. So I went and did my thing in the kitchen and my husband somehow flipped the channel to Nancy Grace.....I couldn't believe it - She had LW as her guest. LW stated that she STILL uses the same criteria that this witness uses and also went on to say that she has not yet seen anything in this case that relates to BWS to JA but I don't remember her reason for that.

Would love it if Lenore Walker emailed the judge with a little note

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Yes, indeed she did say that. My, you'd think JW would have been very sure of herself before she stuck that salted foot so far down her throat, but I guess she likes a snack before lunch.

Why would she accuse the witness of not knowing something that isn't true? Do you suppose JW is depending completely upon ALV's word? That was devastating IMO. I mean, JW was very SNIPPY about that as if it were fact, but never gave any proof of it.

 

[Boytwnmom]

Yes, a good day overall, but you are extraordinarily lucky to have missed the yawnfest that was this morning's "cross examination." Boring is not the word for it. The thread was full of new ways to express boredom and frustration. "Make it stop!" was a common refrain, as was "I can't take any more of this, I'm going to actually go do some work."

I myself commented that I woud rather have a colonoscopy. Seriously.

That was my sense from brief snippets I was able to hear in the car on HLN on Sirius. We were on our way to Cape Cod and the rest of family was not into listening so I waited til they fell asleep but HLN makes me crazy with their incessant commercials so I didn't hear much but JW's demeanor seemed so snarky and mean girlish.

It's one thing to seriously challenge a witness a la JM but she seemed petty and pointless in any larger scheme of things. Such cheap shots will not be lost on this jury. It's also poor practice to be so unconcerned with the juror's time. Get in and get out is what needs to be done at this point. It's almost like she is unaware there is a jury or thinks you win if you drag out the questioning longer than the other attorney. This is going to be a long rebuttal if this continues. JM will be putting on witnesses and getting quickly to his points but I can see JW'S doing this with witness after witness. Perhaps they are counting on driving the jurors insane,one by one, so they can have their mistrial. I'm not really kidding either...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

:fence:

Well, ooookaaaayyyy... Since migraines aren't as off topic tonight as they would be during court proceedings, I guess I'll share my nightmarish experiences with migraines, and what it took for me to finally get them under control. Back in Oct of 1997, I was driving on an Atlanta interstate (I-285) on the way to a line dancing lesson at a country bar, and found myself in the middle of a 5-car pile-up when someone behind me didn't notice that traffic in front of her had come to a dead stop due to construction, and started the chain reaction MVA going ~70mph. I walked away from the accident, feeling shaken up and disoriented, but thought I was otherwise uninjured.

It didn't take long for me to realize I was NOT OK. And for the next 6 months, I suffered with constant debilitating migraines (never had even a mild headache before the accident), along with severe neck & back pain, with neuropathy in my upper and lower extremities.

With the migraines, I had extreme hypersensitivity to light & sound, nausea/vomiting, slurred speech and visual disturbances such as double vision, and spreadsheet lines looked crooked as I tried to work from home :crosseyed: , and every little movement was sooooo painful! Day after day, I felt like I was outside my body watching myself struggle... very disoriented! My friends said there were moments when they were attempting to talk to me, and I "wasn't there". I tried Imitrex and Maxalt with very little relief.

After 6 months of this insanity, I was referred to a neurologist, who administered an occipital nerve block... shots in the back of my head, at the base of my skull. MAGIC! Finally, some relief! The migraines were much less frequent and less severe after the occipital nerve block. I continued with these nerve blocks every 2-3 months for the next 2 years, with supplemental Maxalt (quick-dissolve, at the onset of the "aura"), and nightly Neurontin to assist in prevention of headaches and neuropathy.

The migraines are relatively infrequent these days, and very manageable . Plus, I know the triggers to avoid. MSG is the biggest one for me... Ingesting it makes me nauseous and feverish, and I ache from head to toe, especially my head and my lower back, and I get heart palpitations BIG TIME. Neurontin, quick-dissolve Maxalt, a gazillion vitamin & mineral supplements, monthly chiropractic treatments, and daily prayer are all I need to keep the pain at a manageable level now. :dance:

Feel free to pm me if you want to discuss this issue further. I don't want to get in trouble for dwelling too long on an off topic subject. But I've learned so much in dealing with these injuries through the years, and am always happy to share what I've learned in an effort to alleviate someone else's pain! :loveyou:

Regarding JA's migraines: I am withholding judgement as to whether they're real or fake, but after what I've been through, I'm not sure she knows what a real migraine is. :moo: :cow:

 

[Rosemary Pierce]

I think we should stop feeding into the migraine story----has she been diagnosed with migraines by a Medical Doctor? No more migraine talk...she had a headache thats it!

As a migraine sufferer for 30 years..... I can safely say she did not have a migraine MOO.

 

[Lorelilly]

Anyone still here? Boy, Nancy Grace finally had her BOMBSHELL TONIGHT moment tonight.....I wondered why JW would "dangle" that accusation that Lenore Walker no longer uses the criteria she used to use. (Without backing it up with proof). The witness looked absolutely stunned at that notion, and told her no, she didn't agree and was unaware of that. That got me curious - I started googling and found this: http://lawandjusticegov.org/psychol...he-battered-women-syndrome-questionnaire.html

Then I tried to get a PDF of this questionnaire that was put together by many people including "To gain insight into BWS and its effect on women across cultures, Lenore Walker and colleagues are continuing the validation process for the Revised Battered Woman Syndrome Questionnaire 2003 (BWSQ–3). Given the violence against women as a universal phenomenon, it is essential to interview women from various cultures. Consequently, data from interviews have been gathered from Russia, Spain, Greece, Colombia, and South Florida. Furthermore, the research has recently begun to take into account incarcerated women who report a history of battering relationships".

I couldn't find it but wanted to compare the alleged "new criteria" to LW's former criteria. So I went and did my thing in the kitchen and my husband somehow flipped the channel to Nancy Grace.....I couldn't believe it - She had LW as her guest. LW stated that she STILL uses the same criteria that this witness uses and also went on to say that she has not yet seen anything in this case that relates to BWS to JA but I don't remember her reason for that.

BINGO! And she said, "someone needs to tell the Prosecution..." Wanna bet whether or not Juan is going to know...HELL YES! Oh Happy Days! Shut 'em up and then shut 'em down.

 

[Dana]

JW is going off the deep-end. I'm sure she was trying to make a point but she falls flat most of the time. And my question is, HOW can she complain about Juan having the questions to a test that is a CORNERSTONE of the Defenses case? Does JW think he can't see them because of ("it'll hurt if people see the questions?) that makes no sense. Okay, yesterday JW could NOT get any part of JD's job, titles, schooling, managing, teaching info straight. I was embarrassed for her. But she did it again today. What am I missing? I know JODI doesn't want this case to end but if I were either of her Attorneys I'd want it over stat and then go away for a couple months and lick my wounds. This DT makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the DT is jealous and JW is trying to get the jury to see how 'green' this witness is to which JW is failing miserably. But I say, quality over quantity thing and I'll bet the jury is thinking the same. I kind of like the fact that JW keeps bringing up how knowledgeable Dr JD is. I keep calling out, "you go JW, give the brilliant doctor another gold star!". I really don't know what the DT is thinking.

 

[Lexington]

Was Jodi wearing the same pukey green shirt that she was wearing today the last time court ended early because of her migraine? If so, this could all be a ploy. Anyone would look sick in this color. If all else fails, go for jury sympathy.

 

[Lorelilly]

I have had a few migraines, thankfully not regularly. Several years ago I worked in a real estate office & for Christmas, this really kooky realtor gave me a long silky beanbag-type thing filled with aromatic rice (I think). Had no idea what it was & coming from her I was like what else would I expect. But it turned out to be absolutely wonderful to lay across my forehead & eyes for bad headaches. I've misplaced it so I need to find another. She got it at a MRDD Workshop.

People were making remarks all day about how gross Jodi looked (I know we do it everyday), but it seemed even more prevalent today. Toward the end, she did get really peaked. Maybe not a migraine but something was going on with her.

Whats happening is she knows this case is going to end, tho she will do everything in her power to drag it out. She's crazy like a fox.

 

[LotusPawprint]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the talking heads on HLN who called the defense witness Dr. Samuels, but are not referring to the prosecution witness as Dr. DeMarte?

The most glaring example was a pro defense talking head on JVM's show.

He said, "Janeen DeMarte didn't get her Masters degree until 2009."

WTH.

And JVM failed to correct him by saying it was her doctorate that she got in 2009. Shame on Jane for the oversight.

Could there be a little sexism at play here by not calling a female witness by her proper title? Or, is it because she's only 32?

I'll let you be the judge.

I am bothered and have become increasingly bothered by almost everything HLN does with programming, on air "talent", content, etc so I don't watch any of it, at all, ever, anymore. Period.

I've had many issues with them before this trial but this has put me over the edge and given me clarity.
The goal is not to inform or provide the best dialogue or highest caliber professionals, or report responsibly.

Instead it's to put on shows, entertainment, to create controversy, dissent, to make their anchors and TH's the talking points (when there is MORE THAN enough to talk about when it comes to the trial, the evidence and the actual issues).
The evening shows promote all of their guests as "So-and-so's Best Friend" when he or she hasn't seen the involved party in 15 years. They feature "experts" who don't appear to actually be watching the trial so they put their spin on the trial but it's irrelevant.
There are clear biases on every show, every night, and IMO it's all for the purpose of ratings.

It wouldn't be difficult to put together good shows with intelligent commentary and dialogue and examination of the testimony, witnesses, and evidence but instead they feature folks like crazy man who waves his big kitchen knife around while talking about Travis' 29 stab wounds as he laughs his way through his segment on Dr. Drew.
NG and JVM repeatedly open their show with (and have built this case to be) "Blond Beauty Bombshell" and then they wonder why there's such a fascination with the defendant and the case... AND they wonder why there are such double standards when they are creating that platform and perpetuating it in the media coverage.
Those evening shows have inserted themselves and individuals on them into the case and trial, invite irrelevant yet controversial and really objectionable characters on as guests... so it's not just that they are covering a circus, but they are one of the main acts.



I don't mean this post as a whine and complain about HLN but as a sad observation on what's happened to a station that used to have integrity.. the "N" used to stand for News, don't know what it's for now.

For me if I want to hear the opinions of people I respect and who have knowledge in various fields and who I'm able to engage with instead of yelling at my TV as my blood pressure rises, I come to WS. HLN is the TV version of the Nat'l inquirer and for me I think Travis and this case deserve much better than that (and muchbetter than what the defense team brings, but I can't control that, though I have been turning them off).

 

[Paintr]

I think we should stop feeding into the migraine story----has she been diagnosed with migraines by a Medical Doctor? No more migraine talk...she had a headache thats it!

When did the court announce that JA had a headache? All I heard the judge say was that an issue had come up. It could have been any number of things. People are speculating that JA was ill. That's what we do here...speculate, share ideas, info, ect.

 

[atthelake]

ACK!

Alexander Family Friend,

Texting info to a prosecutor or to someone to give to a prosecutor is risky during an active trial. Excellent way to create trouble that could multiply, starting with the fact a prosecutor would have to disclose anything s/he received in the way of info/evidence to the court, to the defense, to the judge, and it would become part of the court record. Then the person who sent the info would also be outed. It's just a bad policy to do anything to be inserted in a criminal court case of any size and it's especially touchy in a case with national attention. JM doesn't need any (more) problems. As it is now the defense practically makes hourly motions for mistrials.

Please just trust that JM knows how to try his case and certainly knows how to get information.

:bump:

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2