suspicious1
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 3,762
- Reaction score
- 20
She even had her own investigator!
Really?!
I did not know that.....:what:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She even had her own investigator!
BBM
You're not the only one. The first video has 290 hits right now. The second one 10. :giggle:
I'd be prepared to bet that all her diaries were seized in the beginning and photocopies made so you would be able to compare to the originals in any event. However that's not to say she didn't spend three weeks doctoring them knowing full well they would be brought into evidence. That JA even mentions the diaries in her interview with Det Fl makes me think she really wanted them read.
Someone on a previous thread aptly changed the spelling to Alyce in Juanderland. Perfect!!! :clap:
Snipped by me.
ALV was initially retained as the DT's Mitigation Specialist.
HLN has shown the opening statements this afternoon. I didn't see the start of this trial, so I watched JM. What struck me most is, this girl who sees herself as so intelligent was just SO incredibly stupid and clumsy in the way she went about this murder. Her planning and her alibis were just so soap opera standard! Her anger just got the best of her intellect I guess?
OT
Hey Little Mel...Be on the lookout for the Louisville Cardinals to be in your city....We're coming!
Go Cards! :seeya:
I hope today everyone is wearing red....it's National WARE red day!
sorry for the ot.
I agree! Obviously she thought they'd be read or why bother with all the nonsense entries after TA was found dead? It wouldn't be difficult to create one journal in a couple of days and she had lots of time before being arrested. Also didn't Paul Sterns, who loaned her money just before June 2nd, say she spent all her time writing in her journal in the bar/restaurant? Some of the mistakes she makes and words she crosses out, the few I've seen, look like the sort of mistakes you make when you're copying rather than writing. And the handwriting looks too consistent ......
Gotta get back to work but had to share that said boyfriend
Who hates this trial and supposedly does not watch
Just sent me a txt to tell me
"Now Pebbles is addressing the jury " lol
His intelligence and wit win equal pointsThis made me think of the John Mayer song...
Your Body is a Juanderland
Now that I have instilled this thought into the minds of the many adoring WS female fans...I will carefully step back to avoid getting trampled.
Someone on a previous thread aptly changed the spelling to Alyce in Juanderland. Perfect!!! :clap:
I've studied the lingo and am preparing the lexicon for those who don't speak 'Jodese'.
Some excerpts:
- "Fog" = Convenient and selective amnesia
- "The gun went off" (all by itself) = I shot Travis
- "Travis died" (all by himself) = I murdered Travis
- "It" (Gramps' stolen .45) = The gun I used to shoot Travis
- "De-edify" = Comes after Ce-edify and before Ee-edify
- "Contemporaneous with" = $20 phrase I use to impress the GED-challenged
- "That chaotic pattern that paper falls" = Please believe this pedophile crap
- "Special mouth hugs" and "Generous facials" = Just what you think it means
- "Spun me around" = Open for business
Totally agreeing with you on this one. If she felt completely comfortable and justified in her conclusions, she wouldn't be so defensive.I agree with the slippery slope that might ensue from answering a closed question that requires elaboration, but it would be easier to accept if you aren't trying to argue every yes or no question. That's simply obfuscation,no matter how you rationalize it. When Juan asks, "Isn't that one of your main tools," that is an obviously simple yes or no question. It does not commit you to saying "it is my main tool," but that is exactly how she tried to justify her unwillingness to answer. There's only one of two ways to see that. She either isn't listening to the question carefully, or she is intentionally being obtuse to avoid answering. The latter is most likely given her later responses.
Recall that at a certain point she mentions that she does "not know what he is trying to say," and other statements in a similar vein. This statement is not consistent with active listening. What she is obviously doing is attempting to stay ahead of the prosecutor and prepare her answers -- or her obstruction to those answers -- appropriately. Given the painful results, it is clear she does not think fast enough to be able to play that game with this particular person. In any event, that is not what she is there for. She should simply answer the questions to the best of her ability as the so-called "expert" she purports to be.
A professional would recognize that there may be alternatives to his or her conclusions. The fact that she is unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of her fallibility is telling and does not speak well for her.
Finally, even if a simple yes or no answer would be insufficient owing to a need for further elaboration, she could simply state that as she answered. We saw that several times with Dr. Samuels. He tried similar tactics with JM, but realized at some point that it was easier for him to simply say, "I would say yes, but I would need to elaborate." JM can either allow that or not depending. If it's of earth-shattering importance, it will be up to the defense to handle it on redirect.
I understand what you're saying about JM attempting to engineer people into a tight box with some of the questioning -- but he doesn't do it with every question. The problem, in my view, is that when witnesses like these are trying to guess his strategy rather than simply answering, they become constantly obfuscative and combative. If they would choose their battles more wisely -- such as in the instances you've highlighted here, where a closed answer would be inadequate -- the jury would view them much more favorably in my estimation.
:cow:
I don't think so. I think she was retained as a mitigation WITNESS (i.e., to testify only in the penalty phase) but later agreed to testify in the guilt phase as well.