weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #140

[gauntlet]

ITA. I think it was ALV refusing to answer the question completely and honestly. JM was fully in charge.
If I am confused, straighten me out....when JM spoke to the Judge about
'the question we talked about', it seems that the question about TA being extremely afraid was NOT that question, since it had been asked of ALV before JM made that comment. Any idea what 'the question' was, in fact?

I agree with all that My originial post was asking about what that question could be. I've no clue. At first I wondered if he was going to make some kind of time out comment but I think there's more to it than this.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I believe Ms. Wong's testimony is from the earlier motion for mistrial based on prosecution misconduct. From my understanding this is only a postponement, not a new issue.

 

[Nosey Parker]

ALV must share so much with Dan Rather and his view of lies and liars articulated almost exactly a dozen years ago, in May of 2001:

“I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”

Even if this were true :floorlaugh: I do not understand why people think lying on the stand is of no consequence! :furious:

 

[JustJudy]

OT sorry....can anyone help me remember the name of the oh so clever guy posting funny JodiArias reports? He gets Ls & Rs reversed. Wanted to pass it on but durn brain, she no good sometime. Thanks much!

(Wendy Lonker's YouTube sendup of Nancy Grace is hysterical too in case anyone has 't seen it)

 

[Steft50]

Being sort of new at following this case and only knowing what I've read on here, heard on tv, or heard from my DH, the DV is what I am having the hardest time understanding.

Please, if I am wrong I would appreciate someone correcting me!!

There are supposedly 2 instances of actual physical violence (before the nightof the murder), and the only information we have on that comes from the defendants mouth...who has proven time and time again to be a liar, chronically from childhood.

The DV "expert" claims escalation of DV and arrives at this conclusion because of texts, im's, emails, all made from a thousand miles (give or take) away, which in my mind is more of a cyber relationship with a few real life moments during the time they were supposedly "together". So, cyber threats, cyber anger, cyber rants, cyber rages...all of which can be turned off at any time by the supposed victim of this domestic violence.....and there is my problem...she is an adult, in what appears to be a completely consentual *relationship* with TA, but almost all of the claimed abuse happens ONLINE...cyber....turn off if you don't like....cyber...cyber....this is not a teenage girl being cyber bullied with her whole known world watching...this is private. I see no evidence of escalation by TA in any universe that would be considered real life. He gets angry, enraged at being threatened with lies about liking children (not even going there in how wrong they are with a ped's likes and dislikes that don't usually cross genders).

I guess I am just not seeing how private cyber fights can be considered escalation of DV....just not getting it.

 

[Sleuth5]

I believe Ms. Wong's testimony is from the earlier motion for mistrial based on prosecution misconduct. From my understanding this is only a postponement, not a new issue.

That's how I understand it too, probably related to "picture-gate". :furious:

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

Mikee something..... I am trying to remember too! LOL

 

[nursebeeme]

no discussion thread for posting of trial spoof videos

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9225589&posted=1#post9225589​

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

OT sorry....can anyone help me remember the name of the oh so clever guy posting funny JodiArias reports? He gets Ls & Rs reversed. Wanted to pass it on but durn brain, she no good sometime. Thanks much!

(Wendy Lonker's YouTube sendup of Nancy Grace is hysterical too in case anyone has 't seen it)

Mikee Daniels....I'm sure it's over on the Spoof Thread!

 

[nursebeeme]

Mikee something..... I am trying to remember too! LOL

all of mikee is on the new thread :wink:

 

[Juli]

posted by boodles


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.

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Love it!!!!

 

[atthelake]

thanks for posting this.....he was asked by a reporter to walk with him and that is the only reason he went out the front door. He had no idea he would be approached and the reporter states she did not approach him until the jury had left. why is the Judge allowing the mistrial motion to remain, what do they think Grace Wong is going to say that has not already been said?

Too bad that I cannot do it on my mobile! Gosh it is so disappointing that we cannot see stuff on mobile. But oh I can see the advertisement!

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Threeplus1]

She did! In her article she lists 3 categories of battered woman syndrome. She then goes on to say that men have the ability to control or stop an aggressive act against them by a woman (rubbish). She then concludes that men don't fit the 3 categories of battered woman's syndrome because they can stop the aggression, they don't show fear, etc. She says fear is a requisite.

Bah.

Unbiased my ***. :furious:

As a young adult, I lived across the hall from a very well-built young man. His ex had "gone off" on him a couple times, so he broke up with her. This ex-girlfriend broke into his apartment, waited for him, and attacked him. She hit him in the head with a bank of coins which stunned him, then she went on to beat the day lights out of him--including breaking his ribs with steel-toed boots. In a normal everyday situation, he could have snapped her like a twig, but she had the element of surprise and almost killed him. He had no chance of stopping her aggression once she had the upper hand. Just like Travis.

 

[Wake_me]

She does say a woman's aggression does not present a "survival" problem to a man unless the woman uses a neutralizer (gun, knife, etc.).

So if a woman uses her fists on a man's face, she believes the man can easily stop the abuse therefore no battered husband syndrome can occur. :what:

I cannot understand her logic. Just because a man doesn't show fear (that's typical of men isn't it??), and if they're being slapped, punched, pushed, etc. by a woman, it means nothing???

I will say that because of ALV my eyes have been opened wide to the very real existence of women abusing and battering men and the bias that exists against those men.

Because of ALV, in future I will view a battered woman case differently.

So she generalizes, believing all males are physically strong and all women are weak as a kitten?

I viewed this video here a while ago and it really opened my eyes to the
bias in such a situation. It's an ABC news hidden camera report with actors pretending to be a couple in an altercation at a public park. One woman walks by and literally smiles and fist pumps as the man is being hit. Others just walk by, even an off duty cop. When asked, most say the assumed he did something to deserve it.

Thankfully after some time group of women confronted the woman hitting her perceived bf and even called the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

 

[SunnyinMO]

Being sort of new at following this case and only knowing what I've read on here, heard on tv, or heard from my DH, the DV is what I am having the hardest time understanding.

Please, if I am wrong I would appreciate someone correcting me!!

There are supposedly 2 instances of actual physical violence (before the nightof the murder), and the only information we have on that comes from the defendants mouth...who has proven time and time again to be a liar, chronically from childhood.

The DV "expert" claims escalation of DV and arrives at this conclusion because of texts, im's, emails, all made from a thousand miles (give or take) away, which in my mind is more of a cyber relationship with a few real life moments during the time they were supposedly "together". So, cyber threats, cyber anger, cyber rants, cyber rages...all of which can be turned off at any time by the supposed victim of this domestic violence.....and there is my problem...she is an adult, in what appears to be a completely consentual *relationship* with TA, but almost all of the claimed abuse happens ONLINE...cyber....turn off if you don't like....cyber...cyber....this is not a teenage girl being cyber bullied with her whole known world watching...this is private. I see no evidence of escalation by TA in any universe that would be considered real life. He gets angry, enraged at being threatened with lies about liking children (not even going there in how wrong they are with a ped's likes and dislikes that don't usually cross genders).

I guess I am just not seeing how private cyber fights can be considered escalation of DV....just not getting it.

BBM...welcome to my world...and a bizillion other people....only in ALV's mind.

 

[nursebeeme]

Mods, can I post a link to ALV's article "Battered Husband Syndrome (and Other Tall Tales)?
TIA!

update: yes, you may post it.. with that being said it is okay as long as this trial discussion thread does not turn into the all about alyce thread. (same rules also apply)​

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

What's driving me batty this weekend is what is going on with ALV. Her testimony supposedly was over. Jury questions were done. Follow up was done by both sides.
BUT! The Judge said she has to be there on Tuesday to continue her 'testimony'.
What is this all about? She isn't being recalled on her role as DT DV expert, right? So far nothing appears on the docket about other motions being entered or filed.... any wise sleuthers have a good idea of what's coming up with ALV? I can't wait for Tuesday....and I have to work that day too....darn it, oh crap, gosh, even

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

update: yes, you may post it.. with that being said it is okay as long as this trial discussion thread does not turn into the all about alyce thread. (same rules also apply)​

Mods, thank you for saying that. I really do appreciate it.

 

[JustJudy]

Mikee Daniels....I'm sure it's over on the Spoof Thread!

Thanks....a spoof thread!

 

[sammijo]

RSBM

Thanks for your thoughts

Interesting you think this is a play by the DT. I see this more as coming from ALV herself. The DC had to take her out of the court room to get her to change her mind. Perhaps I give it too much power to the witness.

I was jumping off that post with the clip of LaViolette, but I was more referring to the whole of the defense. Every witness they've had up there has testified in virtually the same manner.

Straight-forward, anecdotal answers on Direct.

~vs~

Blank stares and Juan having to bleed a turnip to get them to answer even the simplest of questions on Cross.

I think that is a defense tactic is what I meant. Either that or they could only find evasive combatant experts on behalf of an evasive combatant defendant. I know they went through several, IIRC.

Just MHOO.