weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #140

[legalmania]

lol

pɐǝɥ ʎɯ uo ƃuıpuɐʇs *ıpoɾ* ɯɐ ı ǝʞıl lǝǝɟ ı ¡¡uʍop-ǝpısdn os uǝǝq sɐɥ lıɐɹʇ ǝloɥʍ sıɥʇ

Oh ok that's why Jodi did the headstand to read a post.

 

[ChinaBlue]

I found the article ALV wrote for the Women's Studies Encyclopedia, it's titled "Battered Husband Syndrome (and Other Tall Tales)".

In it she says "a woman's violence does not create a battered husband syndrome."

:what:

I am disgusted with ALV. Absolutely disgusted.

OK - I found this through some Internet research and it might help explain where ALV is coming from:

There is something called the Violence Against Women Act Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you scroll down to the section "Debate and Legal Standing" one of the paragraphs says "Some activists oppose the bill. A spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America called the Act a "boondoggle" which "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men." Sounds just like our ALV, doesn't it?

If you are interested in a little more "explanation" of ALV's dogmatism (or perhaps fogmatism), there was an interesting article in Pyschology Today that led me to the Act above - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201304/the-mobbing-alyce-laviolette://. It was in the comments that I learned about the Act and its background ideology which totally explains ALV's behavior. If you go there, look particularly at the comments titled "Not Surprised" and "Innocent Men Are Destroyed". If this doesn't fit ALV to a tee, you can put me on time out! LOL

 

[sammijo]

Sometimes I get on the board and don't log in, just so I won't be able to post! Especially when I'm tired.

I need to do the same thing! I've noticed lately that when I'm stressed or tired, I lose my cool much more easily while watching this trial.

I was particularly tired and sunburned after a 1st grade field trip with my son's class, while watching LaViolette answer juror questions. When she answered the "greater perpetrator" question with the resounding "no", I really lost my nut. I wouldn't even pick up my phone and look on here for fear of what I might say.

 

[kscornfed]

Thanks to the member who posted this link about JA's premeditation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gcrnKD2UAk&feature=youtu.be

I hope JM explains it so simply and clearly. And step by step.

i love this guy. LOL. he cracks me up. i read on another thread that the gun evidence isn't 'strong' enough. HELLO???

what are the ODDS that a gun, of the same caliber used in the murder 6/4, is mysteriously stolen from the house where JA is living (and many other guns and cash are untouched), on 5/28, 2 days after her BF told her to get lost?
seriously, if anyone doesn't think that's HIGHLY unlikely to be a coincidence, i give up!!

 

[atthelake]

A lot of men will not fight back if a woman is beating them because they were taught to never hit a female under any circumstances and because people like ALV would blame him for the violence even though he was reacting.

Thornton here is a member... did a very very very good post on that very subject. my signature is part of that post for those that can see it.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

And don't forget "someone who lies is not a liar!"

That just made my head spin.

How in heck would I question Jodi if I had to evaluate her?

Jodi, were you lying about lying when you lied the first time? When you lied about the second lie before you changed your third lie, was that a lie? How about that third lie? Was that just some offshoot of the second lie or was that really a fourth lie or just another version of the second lie? Which is it Jodi? And don't lie to me.

 

[Elley Mae]

Thank you. This is a google book link, click on Page 155, scroll down a little bit to get to the beginning of ALV's article titled "Battered Husband Syndrome (and Other Tall Tales)"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DkPFL6XcKeQC&q=battered+husband#v=snippet&q=battered husband&f=false

Honestly she should not be allowed to testify, she is so one way. jmo

 

[Boodles]

Something from Juan's cross of ALV, testimony on April 9th in AM, about 50 minutes in: ALV says she reviewed JA's interrogation with police, but NOT the video, only the transcript. IMO this is just crazy, especially for someone who claims 90% of communication is nonverbal! Plus, she obviously did not view all the bizarre behaviors (headstands, trash snooping, worries about make up etc.) which may have been a clue to her that JA was not a traumatized victim of abuse who had just killed someone in self-defense, but rather a liar and manipulator. She was duped by DT and should have demanded viewing the full interrogation tapes. I wonder if she is watching them this weekend.

The defense may have tried to dupe her, but I call BS on only considering what is handed to you. It's a total failure to do due diligence. In the end, she can blame everyone else (as does the defendant), but ALV had a professional responsibility, and she did a superficial, biased and incomplete assessment. Maybe she did this on purpose to protect her biased POV from being influenced. But it doesn't matter why. It is what it is and she's accountable for her part of this trial.

 

[Nhic]

And even when a man, such as Travis Alexander, says he is extremely fearful, she does not believe it.

The other part of her testimony in terms of the DV which I threw right out the window was her understanding of the choking incident. Travis threw JA on the floor, straddled JA and began choking her. JA did not defend herself because she did not want to hurt him.

WTF?

Believe me, when I was pinned down with half my face raked off and was staring at a fist that was ready to smash my cheekbone or jaw, it never ever occurred to me that I did not want to hurt my ex. My only thoughts were how to get away. For ALV to have related that was preposterous. IIRC, when JA was on the stand, she told a different version of this story and I believe she said that she fought back. I'd have to go back and review the testimony to be sure.

I'm sorry you went through that and glad you're here today. :yesss:

I think most of what JA says has a bit of truth sprinkled in with the lies. For example, when JA said Travis choked her I think it was HER who choked Travis. Hence her testimony that she didn't defend herself (true, as there was no need, she was the perpetrator).

If someone is in a situation like that they are going to go into survival mode and fight like he// to get free. That ALV or anyone else would believe JA is preposterous!

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I can't believe I started watching this trial in flannel pants, heavy sweatshirts and fluffy slippers. Now, it's shorts and a tank top..... are we being punked?

 

[legalmania]

I need to do the same thing! I've noticed lately that when I'm stressed or tired, I lose my cool much more easily while watching this trial.

I was particularly tired and sunburned after a 1st grade field trip with my son's class, while watching LaViolette answer juror questions. When she answered the "greater perpetrator" question with the resounding "no", I really lost my nut. I wouldn't even pick up my phone and look on here for fear of what I might say.

What makes me more upset than anything, is that darn pause button on hln. I started recording it but found myself so tired of three minutes of testimony then fast forward. OK I feel better now.

 

[Nhic]

OK - I found this through some Internet research and it might help explain where ALV is coming from:

There is something called the Violence Against Women Act Violence Against Women Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you scroll down to the section "Debate and Legal Standing" one of the paragraphs says "Some activists oppose the bill. A spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America called the Act a "boondoggle" which "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men." Sounds just like our ALV, doesn't it?

If you are interested in a little more "explanation" of ALV's dogmatism (or perhaps fogmatism), there was an interesting article in Pyschology Today that led me to the Act above - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201304/the-mobbing-alyce-laviolette://. It was in the comments that I learned about the Act and its background ideology which totally explains ALV's behavior. If you go there, look particularly at the comments titled "Not Surprised" and "Innocent Men Are Destroyed". If this doesn't fit ALV to a tee, you can put me on time out! LOL

Thanks! You know I'm really starting to look at this whole abuse and battering phenomenon through different eyes, and have the DT's witness to thank for that. There must be so many men who are battered but don't come forward because of femi-nazis. :furious:

 

[Pink Panther]

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?

He also refused to give an interview. What more could he have done?

 

[zqtpie]

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
lol

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

What time does court start this week? Usual 9:30 AZ time? And are we four days this week again or Friday too?

 

[LambChop]

And even when a man, such as Travis Alexander, says he is extremely fearful, she does not believe it.

The other part of her testimony in terms of the DV which I threw right out the window was her understanding of the choking incident. Travis threw JA on the floor, straddled JA and began choking her. JA did not defend herself because she did not want to hurt him.

WTF?

Believe me, when I was pinned down with half my face raked off and was staring at a fist that was ready to smash my cheekbone or jaw, it never ever occurred to me that I did not want to hurt my ex. My only thoughts were how to get away. For ALV to have related that was preposterous. IIRC, when JA was on the stand, she told a different version of this story and I believe she said that she fought back. I'd have to go back and review the testimony to be sure.

She claims Bobbi J. did the same thing to her. So, she claims Travis choked her, broke her finger, pushed her down and after moving 1000 miles away from him she ends up taking a trip she could not afford to see an abuser on her way to checking out a new beau. That makes sense....

 

[sammijo]

I compare experts. Take Dr. Horn. Of course he's a PT witness but he did nothing to skew his testimony to the detriment of the defendant. I remember JM asking him if he could tell the direction of the throat wound. Dr. Horn said no. Said he really couldn't tell. He didn't go on for five minutes about the myriad reasons he couldn't tell. He answered the question.
I've seen other experts. One of the standard questions is to how many trials they have testified in and for which side. Clearly they know this is coming and they give a concrete answer.
I've never seen an expert advocate from the stand this way. It's surreal.
She is supposed to objectively analyze. If her assessment comes down in the defendant's favor, so be it. But it has to be based on fact and clear professional analysis and assessment. She's made string art of all she had read and seen and all that she hasn't read or seen.
I said this before and I've not found the source, so if anyone here knows how to locate it, I would be grateful. Earlier on I read that ALV said she was brought on to the defense team to 'create JA's defense'. I know I read it as a quote. I didn't make it up and it wasn't someone's opinion. I wish I could find that source. If you do, please post.

Lol! Dr. Horn was exactly who I was thinking of when I wrote my first post. PT witnesses didn't make up stuff or skew information to suit the prosecution. They testified.

I don't remember Alyce saying that about helping to create their defense, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. That's precisely what I meant. It just doesn't seem like it's isolated to only LaViolette.

Again, this is just MHOO.

 

[ChinaBlue]

Brought over from closed thread:


I am kind of hoping that he cuts back on some rebuttal witnesses. Imo, he does not really need to prove or disprove all of these character assassinations anymore.
I think the jury is getting that these are pathetic fabrications. But if he gets too caught up in all of the side issues then he might miss the core issue: SELF DEFENSE vs CAPITAL MURDER. I think his rebuttal needs to target premeditation primarily. In doing so, it takes the wind out of those silly ' dropped the camera and he lunged' scenarios. JMO

Also, if he puts up executives from Walmart and Tesaro, with computer print outs, there is very little that the DT can do in cross. But putting up the Hughes or the Freemans or MM might backfire, imo.

BBM

I agree with what you are saying but I want one strong rebuttal witness to give Travis Alexander back his dignity - perhaps that doctor (whose name I have forgotten) who TA had dinner with on a regular basis - the doctor to whom TA said - "don't be surprised if I end up dead one day." I paraphrased that but nevertheless, such chilling, prophetic words.

Yes indeed, Jodi was the worst thing to ever happen to Travis.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

The defense may have tried to dupe her, but I call BS on only considering what is handed to you. It's a total failure to do due diligence. In the end, she can blame everyone else (as does the defendant), but ALV had a professional responsibility, and she did a superficial, biased and incomplete assessment. Maybe she did this on purpose to protect her biased POV from being influenced. But it doesn't matter why. It is what it is and she's accountable for her part of this trial.

The old adage 3 sides to every story: your side, the other person's side and the truth should have occurred to her.

ANY expert would at some point view this case the way an adversary would view it and that would mean demanding full disclosure from the DT.

Attorneys don't like to be caught off guard by tidbits clients withheld and experts shouldn't want to be in that position, either.

In a case like this with so much rage in the crime, the messy coverup and subsequent lies, how could she not have realized there was more to this case than just a few thousand text messages/e-mails/IMs and Jodi's journals???

 

[gcharlie]

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.

Reaction To Women Abusing Men In Public - YouTube

TY so much for posting this...it is important for all people to watch.