weekend break: discuss the latest here #125

[YESorNO]

The "gloves" keeping going around in my mind. JA first stated to DF while she was describing the Ninja's that they were wearing "gloves". On another interview while DF was asking her to please tell the truth, while she is telling DF that she would have had to shoot TA as not to kill him in a humane way, she also says ‘But I would have to wear gloves. For whatever reason, this is a sticking point for me. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Mare, I think the gloves part was just to throw him off- that she would be "smarter" than the person/persons who killed Travis. She already believed that her fingerprints were all over Travis' house and couldn't really prove that she was there. Thank goodness for the camera and the bloody handprint. I don't think her saying "gloves" is anything but a smokescreen.:twocents:

 

[Schuby]

Yes, yes...But, but.....if the lawyer knows that his client is guilty and his client knows he is guilty, how do you defend someone like this????? It's all a lie, isn't it????:banghead:

In terms of this case in particular, we know Nurmi wanted off the case but was ordered to stay on by the court.

Speaking more generally, if an attorney is retained by a client who insists that they are innocent, it would be unseemly (I think) for that attorney to say, "nah, you sure look guilty to me! Good luck finding an attorney who believes you!"
There are all kinds of reasons an attorney may refuse a case, but if one genuinely believes that EVERYONE is entitled to a defense (which I believe fiercely) then it isn't really fair to go around criticizing the attorneys who make a system like that possible.

 

[Sleuth5]

If one lives in a small town where there either aren't rental cars available or the choice and cost is limited, yes, they would go into another town/city to rent the car.

However, what is wrong with this scenario, is that she is going on an extended "road trip" with no job or finances, her bank account(s) almost depleted, and owing Travis two payments for a car she made inoperable.

MOO

BBM. Panthera, is that why she did it? I don't actually remember. The finances are pretty compelling too, for the reasons you've given for sure.

 

[SunnyinMO]

I'm sorry Sleuth5 but I can't find it. Maybe Sunny can help out. It was posted this morning, I tried to go back but to no avail.

I found the post I responded to...I think it's #380


Originally Posted by Nhic
Just read a post by someone being critical of the DT being put down all the time.

I think the reason there is so much hostility towards the DT is because of the incredulous and unbelievable story they've advanced in defending their client. It defies logic that JW and KN actually believe what they've put forth to the jury.

That is what gets everyone so riled up IMO.

A defense attorney forces the state to prove its case. That's a very important role because without defense attorneys the prisons would be filled with ham sandwiches.

That said, I get extremely annoyed when any defense attorney shovels such a load of bs (as in this case e.g.) that they've gone beyond their role of forcing the state to prove its case and wandered into some fantasy land that no reasonably intelligent person could possibly believe, just to "win" at all costs.

Had the DT in this case gone with a diminished capacity defense I'd have more respect for them (still wouldn't buy it, but it would have been more plausible than the bs put forth so far).

They chose to go a route that is trying to hoodwink the jury, knowing full well that what they've advanced is nothing but bs.

I've no respect for the DT in this case, none whatsoever.

And that's MO.

 

[Mellinyce]

What?! Despicable and creepy! Why does it not shock me that Alyce would say that to Sam?

Whatever she did say - it's out of line and unnecessary.

O/T but...I see you changed ur picture...I like this one as well...just sayin =D

 

[thefragile7393]

Yes, yes...But, but.....if the lawyer knows that his client is guilty and his client knows he is guilty, how do you defend someone like this????? It's all a lie, isn't it????:banghead:

Lawyers may have a sense that their client is guilty but if they have not specifically confessed then the lawyer can proceed.

With other crimes, sometimes we know the person is guilty but it is the type of pleading that still requires a lawyer-guilty but insane (or not guilty by reason of insanity), sel-defense, or manslaughter. Those cases a defense lawyer can defend someone who has admitted to a crime but that there are extenuating circumstances for why they did the crime.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dani]

Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
Juan will be up Tomorrow
So hang on 'Til tomorrow
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're only a day away! :great::great::great:

 

[thefragile7393]

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I just took a look at a portly member of the DT's web site and I noticed that their bread n' butter is defending child molesters and sex offenders. Is there any truth to that, or is it possible that someone threw up a hoax site - as it does look like a cookie cutter template. TIA

He had barely opened his own private practice when this case came to him and he chose to take it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BunnyHop]

Katie, did you check out his other videos? He made me pee my pants- he's too funny and sooooooooooo true.:floorlaugh:

:great::great::great:

Thanks Katie, I love this guy

 

[YESorNO]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but regarding Ryan Burns, do you think the thought has EVER crossed his mind that "OMG that could have been me" in regards to Travis's brutal slaying/murder? Sorry just can't keep up on the days when we have court, just seems easier to get opinions on weekends.

I'm sure both Daryl and Ryan are saying "there for the grace of God, go I":rocker:

 

[kscornfed]

Perhaps of interest, the blogspot Falsity composed on May 10 was all about her wanderlust & search for fulfillment. She had a throbbing, pulsing desire to experience all the beauties of nature. And she named them. Later that same day she recorded the notorious sex tape, still pulsing and throbbing. Putting the blog and the tape side by side, she's disconcerting to say the least.

If the prosecution makes the case for her leaving home on June 3, armed with the burglarised 25 automatic and the intent to travel to Travis's home and kill him, a long apron of premeditation is proven. With that established, her self-defense claim falls. You cannot enter the home of a man found slaughtered and assert that you were only fending him off, if all along and for more than a day, you planned to kill him. Especially if the 25 automatic was one of the weapons used to lethally attack him. I'm wondering what evidence of forethought to murder other sleuths find most compelling. For me it is the gun: the staged "burglary" & her theft of the 25. That just bellows out louder than Falsity singing Unholy Night.

the gas cans. nobody, but NOBODY, drives around with three 5 gallon cans full of gas. the cellphone being off the entire time she was in AZ.

i'd add those to the list.

 

[Truth Detector]

Take a look at the middle pic... there are droplets of water. To me that means the shower door is closed. moo

This is the shower pic of Travis which was taken with the door closed.

The others were taken with the door open.

We have not seen all the digital images that LE recovered from the card and which are in the possession of the Prosecution and Defense Teams.

 

[Wishbone]

Wishbone, didn't their DT do a much better job of proving DV/abuse? I don't remember the details well, but I recall the case and I thought so anyway.

:cow:

I’m just getting back up to speed on the case, but the similarities in the defense really jumped out at me. It seems Mary’s testimony is what turned the case in her favor. The jury believed her even tho there was really no proof of the sexual abuse except that the defense showed the jury a pair of white platform-heel shoes and a wig Mary Winkler said her husband wanted her to wear during sex. And Pornographic photos she identified as coming from their home computer were entered as evidence. As for the physical abuse, her father suspected abuse but Mary denied it to him and she never received any medical treatment for injuries…….The prosecution even presented a motive for the murder. They submitted details from Mary's confession and revealed what they believe was her motive: She was caught up in a swindle that sunk the family into a financial mess. As part of what is known as a Nigerian 419-type scam, Mary received worthless checks totaling about $17,500, then moved the funds around a number of bank accounts, allowing her to make withdrawals before the checks had cleared—an illegal practice called check-kiting. Matthew and his wife argued about her reckless dealings a day before the killing, say prosecutors, and it was his anger toward her that led her to plan his murder and leave him dying on the floor.

 

[YESorNO]

Well, I thought LaViolette could not have sunk any lower, but if this is true.....

It's been posted on the Justice 4 Travis page that when Alyce approached Samantha, she leaned over and said. "NOTHING PERSONAL".

really? How much more personal can you get than trashing a beloved and deceased brother??? I am speechless.

:what: How did they get this info??? I would have spit in her face. I'm not as refined as Samantha, but, I'm just a "poor slob from the Bronx".:furious:

 

[Sleuth5]

In terms of this case in particular, we know Nurmi wanted off the case but was ordered to stay on by the court.

Speaking more generally, if an attorney is retained by a client who insists that they are innocent, it would be unseemly (I think) for that attorney to say, "nah, you sure look guilty to me! Good luck finding an attorney who believes you!"
There are all kinds of reasons an attorney may refuse a case, but if one genuinely believes that EVERYONE is entitled to a defense (which I believe fiercely) then it isn't really fair to go around criticizing the attorneys who make a system like that possible.

ITA, Schuby, and I'd just add that there's a big difference between providing the best defense possible and suborning perjury. Lots of defense attorneys do the best they can for their clients either knowing or suspecting that they are in fact guilty. In the case of court appointed attorneys, they do not have the luxury of simply refusing to represent them (as witnessed by Nurmi's inability to recuse himself from this case.)

In my view, sometimes people assume that defense attorneys are involved in suborning perjury and engaging in all manner of knowingly illegal acts. Naturally, that's not only reprehensible, it's illegal, and anyone guilty should face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

We don't need to like the defense theory in any particular case, but taking a step to suggesting that it is a product of deliberate illegality is a whole different story. For my part, I demand proof of any such wrongdoing and will vigorously reject any attempt to claim that such is not necessary to cast dispersion or innuendo on any attorneys working on either side.

Just for the record, and for the umpteenth time, I do not like the defense offered by JA, but I maintain it is her fabrication and the defense strategy is stuck trying to float that lead balloon.

:cow:

 

[prima.facie]

Yes, yes...But, but.....if the lawyer knows that his client is guilty and his client knows he is guilty, how do you defend someone like this????? It's all a lie, isn't it????:banghead:

At that point (if the lawyers know the defendant is guilty) the Defense is not saying "they are innocent"....their job is to get the least amount of punishment possible. That is all.

I could not be a defense attorney because I am biased in too many crimes. I would not be able to argue for a lessor sentence for someone such as Jodi.

 

[seguek9]

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I just took a look at a portly member of the DT's web site and I noticed that their bread n' butter is defending child molesters and sex offenders. Is there any truth to that, or is it possible that someone threw up a hoax site - as it does look like a cookie cutter template. TIA

His website has been up for ages...its just poorly done.
Look up his background with this case...

 

[katiedid2]

:great::great::great:

Thanks Katie, I love this guy

Yes I was just there lol he has several. I love this guy he is hilarious.:floorlaugh:
In one video he addresses the complaints from people that think she has some good in her, so he writes her a pretend letter lol. He has one with a timeline.

 

[prima.facie]

Originally Posted by spcagrl View Post
Well, I thought LaViolette could not have sunk any lower, but if this is true.....

It's been posted on the Justice 4 Travis page that when Alyce approached Samantha, she leaned over and said. "NOTHING PERSONAL".

really? How much more personal can you get than trashing a beloved and deceased brother??? I am speechless.

:what: How did they get this info??? I would have spit in her face. I'm not as refined as Samantha, but, I'm just a "poor slob from the Bronx".:furious:

Unless Katie tells us what was said, I don't believe it that is what she SAID. Katie was the FIRST PERSON to inform the media there and us that ALV approached her. However, Katie did not even tell us what was said. Katie was THERE when it happened. << It is over on the other thread...you can read all of Katie's notes here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=6942348

 

[Mellinyce]

I assume the person named Falsity is referring to Jodi...yes?