weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139

[Lorelilly]

Brought over from the Other Thread

A 70 year old man wearing an Affliction tee shirt====really?

Hey now...I'm over 50 and my Mom is 75 and we both wear funky things. And 70 is the NEW 55:rocker:

 

[VALee]

Just seems to me ALV's arrogance allow her to believe she can just do what she wants.

- Speaks over Judge when there is an objection
- Admits to lying on the stand
- Approaches a member of the victim's family
- Asks to use the bathroom in the middle of testimony
- Gets on the stand but forgets to bring her glasses

Did i miss anything?

I really think she has been a huge pain in the backside for everyone involved in the trial, including the DT.

Good ones.

- needs to get a new ringtone for her cell phone, the best one to use is called 'Silent'

 

[TigerBalm]

Who is that annoying blonde talking head on HLN?

She's chastising the jury for being "flippant" and "disrespectful" to Travis and Travis' family when they ask questions like, "Well, you didn't talk to Travis, did you?" That isn't even close to the way in which questions were asked. She's a big pot stirrer.

The actual questions were emphasizing the fact that Travis couldn't tell his side of the story and that DV Lady didn't speak with anyone except Jodi. I think they're making a point to her and to the Family of "We're not buying your snake oil and we don't believe Travis was what you've made him in your mind."

Sometimes I really want to smack the talking heads. :furious:

Holly Hughes, she is very annoying, not a fan of her at all.

 

[basilcat]

I think it's so deliciously ironic that ALV invited her own personal guests to watch her big important testimony and turned into an indictment of her entire career and competence as a professional.

...just perfectly scrumptious ( said in sleuth5's lovely Brit accent...)....:floorlaugh:

 

[tlcya]

Just seems to me ALV's arrogance allow her to believe she can just do what she wants.

- Speaks over Judge when there is an objection
- Admits to lying on the stand
- Approaches a member of the victim's family
- Asks to use the bathroom in the middle of testimony
- Gets on the stand but forgets to bring her glasses

Did i miss anything?

I really think she has been a huge pain in the backside for everyone involved in the trial, including the DT.

arrogance or ignorance? I tend to to believe it is more ignorance. MOO, this woman is not a practiced expert witness. She appears to have no clue how to comport herself in a high profile criminal proceeding, nor come prepared either to court or the stand (glasses). Her courtroom gaffs only serve to highlight that the DT had to really dredge the bottom of the barrel to find an expert who would line up with their "theory" of the case.

I honestly don't know if she is arrogant and thinks the world revolves around her and her opinion or if she is just completely out of her area of expertise, but either way, it does not play well with WS members, the general viewing public and apparently the judge.

 

[Schuby]

...just perfectly scrumptious ( said in sleuth5's lovely Brit accent...)....:floorlaugh:

This is the first time I realize Sleuth5 was British!

 

[Linda7NJ]

It's hard to belief that was the defense case...that's the best they have. They know they lost and Juan hasn't even begun his blistering rebuttal case!!!

Whooooo hooooo!

Would give my left arm for Juan's witness list.

 

[Jeffssis]

Originally posted by AZ Lawyer

"Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us.

This is VERY interesting...I'd love to watch that!

 

[zoozoo]

Just seems to me ALV's arrogance allow her to believe she can just do what she wants.

- Speaks over Judge when there is an objection
- Admits to lying on the stand
- Approaches a member of the victim's family
- Asks to use the bathroom in the middle of testimony
- Gets on the stand but forgets to bring her glasses

Did i miss anything?

I really think she has been a huge pain in the backside for everyone involved in the trial, including the DT.

- brings her own cheerleaders.

 

[Maryann123]

Originally Posted by Boodles
JM: Ma'am, it is 6:00, isn't it?

ALV: I can't answer that question. There are two hands on the clock, and they move. They are moving now, even though it's imperceptible. So I cannot say yes, it's not a yes or no answer.

JM: ma'am, the big hand is on the 12 and the shorter one is on the 6, correct? Yes or no.

ALV: It depends what you mean, Mr Martinez, by "the big hand" and "the shorter one." And what do you mean by "on"? Are you trying to trick me? I just can't answer the question. I don't know what you are asking. A clock has moving parts and numbers. There are different types of clocks, digital and analog. And there are time zones...

JM: I didn't ask you whether a clock has moving parts. Did I ask you that? Did I ask you about time zones? Ma'am, you do know how to tell time, don't you?

ALV: Yes, Mr Martinez, I can tell time, but I am here to talk about domestic violence, Mr Martinez, so when you ask me if its 6:00, I am confused about where you're going.

JM: Judge, non-responsive. Please instruct the witness...

JW pops to her feet: Judge, may we approach?

JSS: You may.

Stomp stomp strut strut ==>sidebar ==> 5 minutes of white noise

Stomp stomp strut strut back to chairs.

JSS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are taking a recess for 10 minutes.

30 minutes pass

JM: ma'am, is the time now 6:40? Yes or no.

ALV: the big hand is on the 40 and the little hand is between the 6 and the 7, closer to the 7, so it's 6:40.


Had to bring this over from the previous thread because everyone needs to see it. Hilarious!!!

I totally agree! Post of the day.

 

[basilcat]

This is the first time I realize Sleuth5 was British!

....well, at least his doggie is....:floorlaugh:

 

[Veritas_Vita]

Where is everyone?

I just woke up with the laptop half off of my lap and the cat on the other half. I was trying to keep up with all the threads. Time to shut it down and unplug!

Love you WS'rs!

:seeya:

 

[popsicle]

Just seems to me ALV's arrogance allow her to believe she can just do what she wants.

- Speaks over Judge when there is an objection
- Admits to lying on the stand
- Approaches a member of the victim's family
- Asks to use the bathroom in the middle of testimony
- Gets on the stand but forgets to bring her glasses

Did i miss anything?

I really think she has been a huge pain in the backside for everyone involved in the trial, including the DT.

Instead of standing while the jury is dismissed she tries to engage the judge in conversation.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Bringing over from other thread 'cos the door slammed on me and broke my finger. :facepalm:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
So...I was going to respond to a bunch of posts but there were just too many.

Just to clear a few things up:

1. A witness being impeached is not an EVENT that causes anything else to happen. It just means the cross-examination went well. It does not mean there is some announcement to ignore her testimony. It does not mean there could be a mistrial.

2. Witnesses lying on the stand is also common and normal and a daily occurrence. This does not cause a mistrial or create any need for a separate hearing. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that perjury charges were brought--and I mean close to zero percent probability--those charges would be brought in a separate criminal proceeding and not as part of the proceeding in which the witness was testifying.

2. If JM had wanted to disqualify ALV as an expert, that motion would have been made and ruled upon before she got on the stand. And absolutely nothing she has said on the stand has altered the qualifications JM was aware of before she got there. And she clearly is qualified as a DV expert anyway.

3. There is some possibility that this hearing on Tuesday will concern ALV's approach of Samantha, depending on what she said and what she had been instructed prior to that time. Obviously, she knows at least as of today that it would be illegal for her to approach the family for an interview. It would also have been illegal for her to approach the family as an agent of the defense team (e.g., bearing a message from the defense), rather than going through the prosecutor. It would not have been illegal for her to say, e.g., "sorry, nothing personal" to Samantha, although it would have been unprofessional and thoughtless. But perhaps somehow she had already been instructed not to talk to the family? Seems unlikely, though. Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us.


Thank you, as always, AZlawyer.

I have been off line since the end of court today. Has anyone posted the possibility that the same juror that asked LaViolette why she continually looked over and smiled at the defendant may have sent a note to the judge last week that LaViolette was being coached from the defence table?

I wondered if the two hour session in chambers the other day, with LaViolette present, was while the judge went through the camera footage, and now Tuesday is a hearing on Wilmott's behaviour.

Just a thought.

 

[seguek9]

ugh...I messed up my signature

wanted to share this story--wonder if if its connected in any way to this trial...

Although Sheriff Joe has always been a target...:dunno:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/authorities-investigating-bomb-sheriff-joe-arpaios-office/story?id=18938199#.UWiNVLVQHic

 

[Miss Behavin]

I missed the first hour-and-a-half of testimony today, which I assume were juror questions?

Got home just in time to see Willmott's follow-up (coulda done without that ) Juan's follow up (BAM!) and the judge's first ever admonition to ALV, "I don't want to hear about your personal issues..." lmao.

 

[The Village Idiot]

3. There is some possibility that this hearing on Tuesday will concern ALV's approach of Samantha, depending on what she said and what she had been instructed prior to that time. Obviously, she knows at least as of today that it would be illegal for her to approach the family for an interview. It would also have been illegal for her to approach the family as an agent of the defense team (e.g., bearing a message from the defense), rather than going through the prosecutor. It would not have been illegal for her to say, e.g., "sorry, nothing personal" to Samantha, although it would have been unprofessional and thoughtless. But perhaps somehow she had already been instructed not to talk to the family? Seems unlikely, though. Anyway, my guess is that the hearing Tuesday is something about ALV that has ticked off the judge and that ALV was subpoenaed for (so she is not testifying in her expert capacity IMO). I suppose there is also some possibility it's a contempt hearing relating to her non-cooperativeness on the stand, since she was admonished numerous times and might have been further instructed in chambers. But normally non-cooperative witnesses are not held in contempt--they are just made to look like biased fools in front of the jury, and that's good enough for most of us

So does that mean she is NOT getting paid for that day.....as she has been subpoenaed by the Court??

That would be nice!!

 

[Nhic]

Jodi Arias Trial - Day 46 - Part 2 - YouTube

At 39:28 JW asks to approach, interrupting JM's questioning. It looks like ALV glares at JM. Then she turns her head to the jury and says something, maybe under her breath. Can anyone tell what it was? TIA

 

[Schuby]

arrogance or ignorance? I tend to to believe it is more ignorance. MOO, this woman is not a practiced expert witness. She appears to have no clue how to comport herself in a high profile criminal proceeding, nor come prepared either to court or the stand (glasses). Her courtroom gaffs only serve to highlight that the DT had to really dredge the bottom of the barrel to find an expert who would line up with their "theory" of the case.

I honestly don't know if she is arrogant and thinks the world revolves around her and her opinion or if she is just completely out of her area of expertise, but either way, it does not play well with WS members, the general viewing public and apparently the judge.

I think she is an extremely rigid person. From her testimony, she seems almost pathologically unable to detect nuance and shades of degree in human relationships. Her personality seems equally inflexible, for example, how she wanted the court to run the way she would run one of her groups. Most people have the socio-political skills to understand how different settings imply different rules and standards of comportment, etc. I don't think she has that kind of flexibility, intellectually or personally.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Holly Hughes, she is very annoying, not a fan of her at all.

TY! I've seen that name posted here and there but did not know who she was. I want to pinch her hard so add me to the Not-a-Fan club.