weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139

[uklady]

I don't know if anyone else has posted about this but has anyone noticed how, depending on the question ALV has either had "limited information" or had "lots of information" to base her observations on - so which is it Alyce!

 

[Schuby]

I think it's one thing to ascertain and believe that Travis had a temper. I believe that.

But it's just not corroboration of physical abuse and pedophilia.

You believe it based on what?

 

[Keebler]

As long as we all understand Mark Eiglarsh is mine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about we trade every 6months? Agree, Mark is hot! :silly::silly:

 

[MickyTwoShade]

BBM: Then I am verbally abusive as well because if you come at me sideways...you WILL get a tongue lashing! We DON'T KNOW what started his "verbal abuse". She coulda told him off on a phone call for all we know! I cuss like a sailor after 3:00 pm...Does that make me verbally abusive?

It depends on the context. You could be! I think everyone has the capability.

It's more important that there's NO evidence of physical abuse.

It's also important to look at the character of Arias in relation to the words spoken. Of course I don't have to tell you, but just watching her go head to head with Martinez-- she held her own incredibly. That's not a woman who can be verbally abused. And she also played the victim: remember her ridiculous "men like you yelling at me" nonsense?

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I wonder how many of these Jurors "tweet" or "text".....I bet they will be dam careful from now on if they do, because according to this witness, it can be held against you in a court of Law.....

 

[mck16]

Absolutely, I do. I heard him talk about sex for a very long time and that was only a portion of the conversation.

Here's the unfair thing, and I can't say I have ever seen this happen before--she is commenting on thousands of words she has seen but nobody else will ever be allowed to see. This is so unfair to her because everyone is acting as if this information does not exist. It does exist, you just can't tell.

But, so far, I trust her completely. I'm willing to take her word for what she read and what it means.

IMO

I believe it is what she did not see that convinced her JA was a victim. So much she did not see that eveyone else has. What did she see that no one will ever be allowed to see? I don't understand. ty

 

[Kensie]

Really? You don't want to see them for yourself and draw your own conclusions? She's already been shown to misrepresent other people's words (Jodi was a grown woman when she kicked her mother not a teenager. She said the relationship with Lisa was abusive and she says otherwise). I think you are far too trusting that her assessment isn't biased. She completely disregarded travis' expression of fear. You should remain cautious until you actually see the texts

So true.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

You believe it based on what?

Based on the texts.

 

[molly333]

Really? You don't want to see them for yourself and draw your own conclusions? She's already been shown to misrepresent other people's words (Jodi was a grown woman when she kicked her mother not a teenager. She said the relationship with Lisa was abusive and she says otherwise). I think you are far too trusting that her assessment isn't biased. She completely disregarded travis' expression of fear. You should remain cautious until you actually see the texts

I would love to see them. I don't understand why she is allowed to comment on them but not read them outloud to the court, or why we are not allowed to read them ourselves.

I think they should either put them in or keep them out.

Like I said, I've never seen this before. Maybe one of the Atty's could tell us what they are doing.

But, I do not think we will get to see them.

IMO

 

[Schuby]

Based on the texts.

The may 28 texts?

 

[Mellinyce]

No. Jodi's journals had nothing in them, remember?

Narry a mention of DV except for the occasional comment on his cruelty or harshness about some argument or her growing depression.

IMO

NOTHING that helped determine TA was a victim ONLY that JA was victim... It's just how I took her entire testimony and what I heard in trial...I could be wrong..no doubt...but it's how I heard and interpreted her testimony.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

The may 28 texts?

Right.

 

[Lorelilly]

There was an objection. You can see the court reporter turn her head and hear a man's voice speaking. Then the Judge says "yes" acknowledging that they shouldn't be discussing her medical appts. This leads me to believe they are related to the hearing next week. Since the jury isn't there, colloquy about scheduling issues wouldn't normally be subject to objection -- including (maybe especially) if it were due to medical issues. jmo

The Judge said "I don't want to hear about your personal issues, this is a priority" in other words, the Judge demanded she be there on Tues and she is under subpoena. The "real issue" is to be discussed on Mon between both sides and if it isn't resolved then the EX-Expert is going to have to be there in person to talk about whatever the hell she did that got her subpoenaed in the first place. Karma is biting this lady left and right and to and fro and I'm diggin' it.

 

[PenElaine]

I read the article and I agree that Ms. LaViolette shouldn't be "destroyed". But even a tsunami of negative social media attention will not destroy her. She is not entitled to positive reviews on Amazon and her first amendment rights do not extend to the right to be paid to voice her opinions in a professional setting.

She has chosen to put herself out there professionally and personally. She chooses not only to advocate for a vicious self-confessed killer but to stretch her advocacy to making an implausible case that the killer's victim was a pedophile on the flimsiest of evidence. When confronted with a relentlessly aggressive prosecutor she exacerbates a bad situation by refusing to answer questions directly, disregarding the Court's admonitions, escalating the conflict by getting personal with Martinez, and finally misrepresenting (some would say lying about) her professional experience.

She contributes to blurring the line between her personal and professional personae by refusing to commit to an objective standard by which to judge her conclusions. She bristles when Martinez characterizes her as a human lie-detector, but her evasiveness about particulars, her numbing mantra of "context" and her holistic approach to decision-making leave her open to this kind of reductive labeling. She gives anecdotal answers to hard questions. Her thinking is too often soft and fuzzy. She insists that she lives in a perpetual gray zone, but her final opinion on Travis Alexander as an abuser is unshakably black-and-white.

She offers all this as the cornerstone in defense of an essentially indefensible client. She may very well believe in her cause, but she professes her faith in the face of Travis Alexander's grieving family and a grim and mounting cost to the state of Arizona. She provokes the anger of real victims of domestic abuse who feel insulted by her presentation. And then she complains about the outrage that her professional opinions and her personal conduct have drawn.

I disagree with the article that "nearly anyone would fall apart at such collective aggression aimed at them". Many people would have gone into the trial prepared for what might be coming. They would delete their Twitter and Facebook accounts. They would go dine with good friends in places far away from the courtroom. An escape from on-line bullying is one tiny power button away; a single mouse-click can silence all those clamorous voices.

Of course, Ms. LaViolette should not be menaced or attacked physically. But an on-line expression of genuine rage may in fact be cathartic and healthful, and, in the end, be a valuable contribution to the context on which LaViolette draws to form and express her opinions.

My web-moniker notwithstanding, I'm far too lazy to pick up any pitchfork, virtual or otherwise, and, misguided as she is, I can see that Ms. LaViolette's hands are empty. But if she is scared by the on-line mob rushing at her with their virtual pitchforks, she should glance back over her shoulder. Squinting hard into the shades of gray that surround her, she might finally make out the flesh-and-blood devil that looms right behind her. And Jodi's holding the biggest pitchfork of all.

Thank you so much for this powerful, well thought out response. Kudos!

 

[Schuby]

Right.

Ok, I guess my question then is how you define "temper," is it a quality in anyone who ever gets angry for any reason?

 

[gloomy]

I don't know if anyone else has posted about this but has anyone noticed how, depending on the question ALV has either had "limited information" or had "lots of information" to base her observations on - so which is it Alyce!

Rememeber:

Just because you tell a lie - that doesn't make you a liar. ~ Alyce LaViolette.

 

[Linda7NJ]

How about we trade every 6months? Agree, Mark is hot! :silly::silly:

Ummmm, No!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PrincessSezMe]

:furious::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Step off Princess....he's mine....:great::floorlaugh:

Sorry, not sharing :snooty: :slapfight:

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

Questions I wish the Jurors asked:

"In your experience, how many of your patients have traveled over 1,000 miles for further abuse?"

"Do you believe in the Death Penalty?"

"Why do you think the taped phone sex call that was recorded by the Defendant could be used for Blackmail?"

"Have you ever testified in a Death Penalty Case?" "If so, did you testify for the Defense or the State?" "What was the final result of that case?"

I believe I remember one of the Juror questions was something like, "Have any of your former patients KILLED someone?" Answer: Yes.

:what:

 

[AZlawyer]

It's no big secret to the folks immediately involved. It's just not known to the public since the electronic docket doesn't reflect it. I'm sure the family and the media know what it's about -- especially since the media will be testifying. Why aren't the peeps in the know just spitting it out??

on Travis facebook page it says it has been confirmed that the "issue" deals with the prosecutorial misconduct and Ms Wong (HLN producer) is being called to testify in follow up to Jean Casarez testimony.

on AL, it's unconfirmed but they believe it's regarding her speaking to Samantha

It's a public hearing (not sealed) and hln or whomever didn't have any issue putting Donovan on last night about twitter, etc. etc. even knowing this motion was pending, right? There's no concern about the circus atmosphere, imo. If anything, those who know what the hearing is about are intentionally not clarifying for the express purpose of maintaining the circus environment. It's happened repeatedly in this case where I've been able to go to the courthouse and look at a document that's the subject of wild speculation all over the place and put it to rest just like ALL of the people and media already at the courthouse could have done, but didn't, for days and days. I've noticed that the docs are actually being posted more and more, which is great. But anyone at the courthouse with $1.50 can get copies of the motions that everyone is speculating about.

I didn't think you did have personal knowledge. But the family and the media involved certainly do and it's not confidential since it's a public hearing in open court. There's no reason not to say what it's about unless the parties involved don't want to. That's my only point. It could easily be cleared up with no "fallout," but it isn't. Again.

I think we're talking about two different things here. The hearing involving Ms. Wong is pretty clearly just a continuation of the public mistrial hearing about Juan and the autographs, etc. The defense filed two motions that were very similar on the "circus atmosphere" issue, and at least one of them has been posted here. The other was summarized in great detail in news articles and probably posted as well. Those motions are no big secret, and no one is pretending they are secret.

The "issue" regarding ALV seems to be something separate. There is nothing filed with the clerk's office to look at regarding the "issue." And there have been a whole lot of sealed in-chambers meetings involving ALV. If the "issue" to be heard Tuesday has anything to do with the sealed in-chambers meetings, then the hearing will probably not be in open court--and even if it is, the judge has very likely ordered everyone involved in the sealed meetings not to discuss it until then. And even if she hasn't, the attorneys at least would be aware that you can't disclose things discussed in sealed meetings with the judge.