trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #151

[elementary]

Wilmott is moving around more instead of standing at the podium (Juan Style) she is asking 'right' after every question (Juan Style) she is questioning with a sense of attitude (Juan Style) she is trying to make a point and then move to another point smoothly, effortlessly (Juan Style).

She must have taken lessons from JA.

JW You. Are. Not. In. The. Same. League. As. Mr. Martinez.

IMO

But she can't mimic his train of thought. Ha!

 

[weather_lady]

Wilmott is trying so hard to be a Juan. And failing.

To paraphrase the Highlander... "There can be only Juan."

 

[Sleuth5]

Luckily it was only for a couple of months t most.



Yeah, there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what ineffective assistance of counsel is. Not scoring the points you want to score with a witness is not ineffective assistance. It means either you are working with a bad set of facts or the witness is uncooperative or too difficult to shake.

Ineffective assistance would mean things like falling asleep during trial, allowing in evidence you should not have, and could have omitted, not moving for a change of venue when necessary, not presenting exculpatory evidence, things like that.

Nurmi and Wilmott are good attorneys. They are doing a very good job with what they have. Which is nothing.

I don't happen to like either of them. Okay? I don't like Nurmi for his personal decision to defend sex offenders and for participating in accusing a murdered man of awful things that are not true. I don't like Wilmott for her participation in the same, and her condescending attitude irritates me.

But I'm able to separate my personal feelings to a large degree when I look at how they are doing their job, because of my background as an attorney. Based on that, they are doing a good job. They are going to lose, but they are doing fine and there will be no successful appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel based on their performance in court.

I think people have a hard time separating their personal emotions about this case from what is actually occurring in the courtroom sometimes. We hate jodi for what she did so we hate her attorneys for defending her and her witnesses for their opinions and we thus see every last thing about each of these players we dislike, as negative and horrible, down to the way they sit, the way they wear their hair and the clothes on their backs.

Everything they say is stupid and wrong and everything they do is stupid and wrong.

But that's coming from emotion, not - here's a word we all know now, thanks Dr. Demarte! - "objective" fact.

And that's perfectly normal. It's why people hire professionals to represent them, provide medical treatment for them, advise them as to their finances, etc. Because when we are too close to something and our emotions are in play, it's very difficult to see things objectively.

:goldcrown:

 

[silentenigma]

wilmott is being nasty

Yes she is, very nasty. Chaps my backside!

 

[spcagrl]

She is going to try to make a "pattern" out of one e mail.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Wilmott, give it up - you can NOT put your words in this witness's mouth however desperate you are. IMO she is making herself look ridiculous.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Willmont forgot three hole wonder!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[moonshyne]

JW - "Never met someone so evil..is that mean?"

she should have said, "no its accurate!"

 

[meanddblj]

please say i have no more questions and sit

 

[PenElaine]

The tension Wilmott is creating is abusive. I can't believe how much her behavior is upsetting me so I can't even imagine how the witness is keeping her composure....

 

[Leilei]

JW's attitude is horrible.

 

[makayla]

Jenny, Jenny, Jenny . . . you are sounding so ridiculously testy to me, using the "it's a yes or no question" like Juan does - with Juan it works because the witness is rambling in paragraphs, but when you have a concise witness like Dr. D there is NO excuse for playing this game with her . . . copying Juan does you or your client no favor, but then, maybe that's okay, because I personally have no desire for your client to be given any breaks whatsoever

 

[Sleuth5]

I define rare as before medium and well done.

 

[bexlex]

oooooo... crossing boundaries!!! I now love you Dr Demarte!

 

[wenwe4]

JW w/Dr. D

written statements reviewed in this case - don't want to go behind meaning of the words - look @ words and use as data point . .get different data points from all over and pull together. String emails between TA and Mr. & Mrs Hughes = he talks highly of JA - how much he is into her . .. interested in her . . .he adores her? . . .

he felt fondly of her. they don't get more honest than JA?
I don't remember exactly but if I could look @ email you are referring to
the part that is underlined yes

don't come more honest than JA . . use that as a data point and he was fond of her and speaks highly of her worries that hughes upset JA.

5/26/08 - famililar with IM between JA and TA there were texts where TA was angry with JA and called her names -
do you know character assassination - cuts down own being
harsh names - not ok . .
it was abusive?
implies a pattern of behavior =
unless it is repeated - not particular incident

on 5/26/08 call her names - wouldn't agree that is abusive
I am trying to explain - I can't answer y/n

patterns - talk about patterns - talk about abuse look for more than 1 instance
I would like to clarify
I am moving on - do you want to see pattern of abuse


abuse is a misuse of something in a single incident than you can use abuse

patterns of abuse in relationship - some can be psychological - can be damaging - includes written word -
on 5/26 when TA calls her a freaking *advertiser censored* . . .consider bad, mean, cuts her down
he's never had to deal with a more solid form of evil - not kind words - mean

if you know she has called her these types of names on different emails
are you talking about a hypothetical?

he calls her names
very rarely - yes

how do you define rare .
happened periodically when he felt she had crossed a boundary - he was putting up fair boundaries

are you asking definition of rare or pattern

 

[kayice]

Darryl's??

I thought they said Jodi was never alone with Darryl's child in 4 years they lived together, huge red flag!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yay .. witness got to discuss his anger as a reaction to her crossing boundaries, JW shut her off way too late. Brilliant.

 

[Linda7NJ]

In response to her behavior! He was setting boundaries!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mr.Midnight]

so its ok for ALV to explain she didn't see a pattern with Jodi's behavior

but when Dr. D says same thing about Travis Defense throws a fit

 

[Kittytective]

OMG Wilmott---you are such a snarky woman! 'Witch' rhyme comes to mind. I'm in shock at how she is treating this intelligent doctor. I think she is absolutely horrible at questioning Dr. Demarte; doctor is super clear and is not giving Wilmott an ounce, and JW is just so RUDE to her back! Ugh head bang head bang head bang.