04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[Mr.Midnight]

I think we're all just spent!

This sums it up for me...been a long 4 months

 

[Liebchenmutti]

Looks like sur-rebuttal is on if the DT has their way. Hope JSS denies the motion.

4/22/2013 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 4/22/2013
4/22/2013 REQ - Request - Party (001) 4/22/2013
NOTE: REQUEST FOR SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND NOTICE OF SURREBUTTAL WITNESS
4/21/2013 RJI - Request for Jury Instructions - Party (001) 4/22/2013
NOTE: DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Please. Surrebuttal? I hope to God that this is denied. Juan should get the last word, he has the burden of proof. All the defense does is keep a witness on the stand for weeks & they get nothing out of them.

Why do they get a chance to refute Juan's rebuttal?

 

[AngelWings444]

this was so interesting i bumped it up. seems they run in packs :moo:

They do in CA! The court appoints these "experts", they are all intertwined, and if the parents can't afford their fees, then the State picks it up and pays them. FACT.

These "experts" LOVE it when the parents don't agree on custody, they make thousands and thousands of $$$$$$$ off of it. Judges are afraid to make any decisions, so they use these custody evaluators, who then refer it to the other experts, court appointed attorneys etc...they all run in the same, vicious, circle.

The ones who suffer are the children. :furious:

All for the almighty $

 

[jojomonkey]

I doubt it. I am so sick and tired of seeing these people villified by people who were not there. I don't care if this gets bounced,, I am so sick and tired of this.

I'll try to put it the way my husband did, not that it will make any difference to anyone here.

12 people who didn't hear one effing word the TH's said came to a conclusion. They never heard "tot mom" and the hours upon hours of speculation and drivel that went on for months.

They came to an entirely different conclusion that everyone who listened to the media, does that make any difference to you?

You cannot unhear what you did from months of watching infotainment so you have NO IDEA how those people processed the information they got. And remember it wasn't one or two that came to the conclusion, it was all 12.

Unless you can put yourselves in their shoes you have no business talking them down, calling them stupid or anything of the sort. How dare you? (and not just you Mrs G, everyone who makes those negative, nasty comments.)

The prosecutor didn't prove his case to the 12 people who mattered. Maybe you and the likes of you are the stupid ones?

The justice system didn't fail. It didn't work the way a bunch of entitled TV watching specatators wanted it to, and that's all the better. Message boards and the public who have been innundated with bull from the pretend media are NOT the ones who decide cases, no matter the sense of entitlement.

I think that woman killed her kid. But the way the jury is talked about around here is positively disgusting. How dare you? They did their job and I for one applaud them for doing it knowing they would have to face the likes of the people here, death threats and the rest. Who do you people think you are?

Shame on every single one of you who derides that jury instead of the prosecutor. Shame.

The prosecutor didn't do his job or CA would be in prison. Period.

Some of us did not glean our information by watching infotainment. FWIW, I learned about the case from here and from reading about it, extensively. I don't have cable, never saw the shows you mentioned.

Who do we think we are? People who cared about this stranger of a child to research, read a ton of information about this case and devote our time to following it daily, hoping that child would have not died in vain. Did you follow the case that closely? Did you read every document released? Did you? At least one member of the jury stated that the state did not prove how Caylee died and therefore they voted not guilty. THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR JOB, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO KNOW HOW SHE DIED!!!!! The proves to me they did not read or ignored their instructions.

The jury was instructed to deliberate their decision - they so obviously did not.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

I'll try. :seeya:
A sur-rebuttal can only focus on evidence brought in on rebuttal. They can't start a new CIC. They plan on bringing on another witness to dispell Dr.D's testimony meaning they're scared. At this point does it really matter what they say? I don't believe so. Unlike Cardiology or Physics, there are no constants in Psychological Science. It's all open to subjective interpretation. There are no scans, lab tests etc to quantify the science, just journals and text messages and of course JA. The jury knows she's sick and don't need a battle of the experts to diagnose it. I don't think they really care or empathize with her anyway.
The crime scene photos don't tell the story of self defense for JA nor do they suggest crime of passion. The guy was taking a shower and some jurors might believe that she invaded his personal space even being there. Lastly no matter how many head shrinks testify, it's not reasonable for anyone including a battered woman to stab to death, then stab another 29+ times, then slit the throat and shoot over the passion of a dropped camera.

If the jury sounds angry now, just wait a few more weeks IMO.:hug:

Thank you. I need to focus on voices of reason, such as yours :seeya:

 

[TartLemon]

The DT had JA's jail visitors sealed. Maybe this Dr was their 'hail mary, ace in the hole' if the trial wasn't going well. They couldn't exactly stand up and say that 'our 2 experts bombed so let us try another'. They had to introduce the 3rd Dr on rebuttal. He may have already talked to JA months/weeks/days ago. Maybe when JA was ill or on the weekends.

Ahhhh.... very good point. When Jodi was 'ill' last week.

 

[seguek9]

Remember kids...closing arguments are last. Juan gets the last word....

 

[GoAskAllie]

Was this is front of the jury?

Yes, Mimi testified about the doggy door and more in front of the jury on Day 1 of the trial. As mentioned in my previous post, Mimi told about the stalking incidents during Juan's redirect. Posted the link to her testimony elsewhere on this thread.

 

[Mellinyce]

I CANNOT even reply to that post SusieD because for sure I would get a serious TIME OUT from WS. That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

The smart Websleuthers follow this trial when it is on and rest on court-free days. People like us though? We think about this trial 24/7, always thinking, analyzing, theorising, banging heads etc. I think we're all just spent!

I just had my 'Come to Jesus' moment....

If we all are feeling this way, can we even begin to imagine what the Alexander family is feeling?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[sammijo]

Something else which may make life a little difficult for Jodi on Death Row .. one of her new friends there is a radical racist .. has an issue with Mexicans, doesn't care if they're second generation either ..

Murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She was a member of the Minuteman Civil Defence Corps:



They asked her to leave however because she was too 'unstable' ..

Interesting times ahead for Jodi on Death Row.

I have no problem with anyone of any particular race. Being a mutt myself, I like everybody.

However, I'm all for anything that makes whatever life Jodi has left a living hell. She deserves it. And any time I start feeling soft, I think of the images of what she did to Travis.

Just MOO

 

[BritsKate]

(oh carp...tell me I didnt blow a margin whilst sucking up to a mod....)
:facepalm:

That's what I like most about you. Your subtlety. :floorlaugh:

 

[Litigatrix]

I have NO professional opinion on this, but it strikes me that they could in fact put JA back on the stand to "fix" her lies if they are permitted to offer a surrebuttal. The purpose of surrebuttal would be to contest new information offered during rebuttal. If we consider it from that point of view, she could conceivably be back to "explain" said new information.

 

[kaydono]

I kid, I kid I've already posted what's in the last couple. The computer dude from mesa pd, tesoro and wal-mart. Today I went back as far as the list that appears to have been produced by the State in response to the defense's request for a "good faith" witness list. It's very comprehensive and I think it was intended/required to be a list of every possible State witness known at the time (i.e., other than the rebuttal witness lists I already posted about).

Most of the people on the good faith list are LE/Forensics and custodians of records. The only custodian I didn't recognize was Don's Sporting Goods, but I may have missed posts/testimony about that. The rest were all places that we've seen receipts for, etc. before -- like McD's, Star Bucks.

I focused on the "civilian" witnesses. They were Raphael/Janie Columbo; Lisa; Deanna; Michael Bertot; Ryan; Mimi; David Prusha; Clancy; Mark & Leslie Udy; Steven Taylor; Heather Shafer; and all of Travis' sibs. I didn't see McCartney on the list.

Last, the defense has supplemented its own sentencing phase witness list to include Patricia Womack. I assume this is Jodi's friend who's been on TV recently.

So, there you have it.

Do you, by any chance, know what the outcome was of the defense objecting to the testimony of the company that made the shelves in Travis's closet? Just curious. I so wanted Jodi to be forced to do a demonstration of her shelf climbing adventure in the courtroom. :floorlaugh:

 

[Love Never Fails]

The smart Websleuthers follow this trial when it is on and rest on court-free days. People like us though? We think about this trial 24/7, always thinking, analyzing, theorising, banging heads etc. I think we're all just spent!

Rose,
So well put.
I would love to place my thoughts on hold until tomorrow.

 

[rose222]

Some of us did not glean our information by watching infotainment. FWIW, I learned about the case from here and from reading about it, extensively. I don't have cable, never saw the shows you mentioned.

Who do we think we are? People who cared about this stranger of a child to research, read a ton of information about this case and devote our time to following it daily, hoping that child would have not died in vain. Did you follow the case that closely? Did you read every document released? Did you? At least one member of the jury stated that the state did not prove how Caylee died and therefore they voted not guilty. THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR JOB, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO KNOW HOW SHE DIED!!!!! The proves to me they did not read or ignored their instructions.

The jury was instructed to deliberate their decision - they so obviously did not.

The thing that upsets me the most about the KC jurors is that they did not even take the time to look at the important pieces of evidence. That's all.
I'm off to hide now!:shush:

 

[YESorNO]

I wonder what the Casey jurors think now ... they must know that their verdict damaged everyone's faith in the system to the point where now there's never confidence in a conviction, if anyone says anything that sounds assured someone else instantly pops in with the ever helpful 'Remember the Casey verdict .. we were all sure about that one'.

Do they sit at home and think .. 'Doh!'?

I always wonder if "that thing in Florida" is watching the JA trial (she has nothing else to do :floorlaugh and what she thinks?? Probably that she's "not guilty" --Bah. :floorlaugh:

 

[Mellinyce]

Last night my mom and I were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination (don't ask) and she kept insisting on certain "facts" because she was alive then and remembers them from life. She kept talking about the Zapruder film but calling it "Zagruder," and arguing with me about the name. Finally I said, "So, would you say you remember these details as clearly as you remember that it's Zagruder, not Zapruder? Her eyes got wide and she said, "Okay Juan Martinez!"

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[rose222]

Rose,
So well put.
I would love to place my thoughts on hold until tomorrow.

I'm off to try exactly that now. My head is overheated from listening to the Defense team! I'm giving myself a time-out! I'll be back tomorrow!

 

[Karmady]

Do you, by any chance, know what the outcome was of the defense objecting to the testimony of the company that made the shelves in Travis's closet? Just curious. I so wanted Jodi to be forced to do a demonstration of her shelf climbing adventure in the courtroom. :floorlaugh:

I did not see an order on that motion, no.