04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[cricket49]

Sorry I had to get that first post off my chest.....

Morning guys!! :seeya: :rocker:

 

[LambChop]

Right--but I was just stating my opinion, too. There are posts about this candy issue and I was pointing out that regardless of Jodi Arias's statements, her defense team did not point out candy in the picture, JM did not ask Jodi on the stand about candy in the picture and Jodi has spoken about only one candy episode.

The one candy episode was presented by the defense as an act of sexual degradation and abuse by Travis. It is my opinion that if they had an actual photograph of this, they would be offering it as proof of sexual abuse.

Just as some people insist on seeing candy, my opinion is that there is no candy. We can all express our opinions here.:rocker: We just don't always agree. Just ask Nurmi and his eye reflection testimony!:floorlaugh:

You just have to tell people to stop staring at the picture, they could go blind. :floorlaugh:

 

[raisincharlie]

HLN reporting what the motion said not the actual motion. :blushing: I got it here....
'The defense team wants to call psychologist Robert Geffner to the stand to refute DeMarte's testimony. The attorneys claim Martinez failed to present any evidence that Arias has a personality disorder in its case-in-chief, and therefore they should be allowed to rebut the new evidence introduced during his rebuttal case.

"If a court allows new evidence to be introduced in State's rebuttal, a defendant should be allowed to introduce contradictory evidence in surrebuttal," wrote defense attorney Jennifer Willmott in Monday's filing.' http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/22/jodi-arias-defense-wants-present-more-evidence

So Ms. Wilmott made this movement. Claiming the State introduced new evidence but failed to present any evidence that Arias has a personality disorder... am I the only one seeing the contradiction there ... or the humor of it when thinking about Ms. Wilmott's cross of Dr. DeMarte?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Do you remember when Sting was puzzled by the number of brides and grooms who played this as a first song in weddings? He was confused b/c this song is about a stalker, not love!:floorlaugh:

R U Kidding?????

I NEVER knew that and Sting was big when I was clubbing. Although It was not the song I chose for my wedding--it did seem excessive and was not marrying my husband to be "watched"? Funny what you learn here.

 

[Via]

Thank you, BritsKate. I agree with you. I work with victims of DV on a daily basis and ALV lost all credibility with me when she testified that JA's behavior was not stalking because Travis took no actions to stop it. First of all, stalking is called "stalking" because it is frequently done in a manner that the victim will not know about it (e.g. cyberstalking, peering in windows at night). Because the victim is unaware of the behavior does not make the behavior non-criminal. Pursuant to ALV's opinion, the unaware victim is not a victim. Furthermore, it is well-known that victims of DV often do not react as ALV expected Travis to do by filing police reports. The reasons for not reporting are numerous. It galled me that she could use one of the most well-known facts about DV to state that Travis was not a victim. I wonder if she applies this "standard of reporting" when talking to/about the victims she counsels.

To take your idea a step farther...IF a person being stalked doesn't report it = it didn't happen...then can DV (especially wonky "broken finger" aren't reported, THEY dont exist?? Just a question...

 

[YESorNO]

Shes a piece of work as well as a . Even my 14 year old son said "How can she look at herself in the mirror knowing what she did to someone she claimed to care about."

I think you have a very bright son- so young to know what the truth really is.

 

[BritsKate]

Thank you, BritsKate. I agree with you. I work with victims of DV on a daily basis and ALV lost all credibility with me when she testified that JA's behavior was not stalking because Travis took no actions to stop it. First of all, stalking is called "stalking" because it is frequently done in a manner that the victim will not know about it (e.g. cyberstalking, peering in windows at night). Because the victim is unaware of the behavior does not make the behavior non-criminal. Pursuant to ALV's opinion, the unaware victim is not a victim. Furthermore, it is well-known that victims of DV often do not react as ALV expected Travis to do by filing police reports. The reasons for not reporting are numerous. It galled me that she could use one of the most well-known facts about DV to state that Travis was not a victim. I wonder if she applies this "standard of reporting" when talking to/about the victims she counsels.

And it's what makes her potentially dangerous too. If someone is taking what LaViolette stated as evidence of an abusive relationship instead of putting into perspective abusive behaviors that could be part of an abusive relationship - whole swathes of people are suddenly victimized (trying to figure out why they never felt victimized) while actual people living in abuse aren't seeing the pattern that emerges in nearly every one. A pattern that often exists even if the victim is never stricken nor openly called a single name - the most covert of psychological abuse that can be so difficult for so many to identify as abuse. The flip side: if Jodi's extreme actions are seen as acceptable or warranted, despite them being characteristic of abuse in and of themselves, it helps along a perception that female perpetrators are justified in those behaviors.

And I'm not even gonna get started on abuse victims as helpless, wholesome storybook creations; the validity of anger management as a therapeutic treatment when an abuser is disordered; the success, or lack of, court-mandated batterer intervention programs she advocates and conducts; her enlightened essay entitled 'Battered Husbands And Other Myths'; and the outmoded philosophy that anger is what causes domestic violence. Nope, not even going to go there.

(It's good to have you here, NIN, and thank you for your insight. You should post more often! I'll say please in advance to avoid accusations. :biggrin

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

If anything or anyone dares to interrupt me or in any way attempts to interfere with me watching this trial today, I will be very upset ... ...and I will give dirty looks and, and ... I will probably get fired, lol.









*cheers up* hey, more time to watch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[josie1986]

Is Craig Ferguson Scottish? He is either that or Irish. I love his accent.

he's scottish. he has more of an edinburgh accent,i pretty sure if you all heard me speaking you wouldn't quite catch everything as we talk fast and the thick accent :floorlaugh:

 

[kaydono]

To take your idea a step farther...IF a person being stalked doesn't report it = it didn't happen...then can DV (especially wonky "broken finger" aren't reported, THEY dont exist?? Just a question...

Just another double standard in her illogical thinking patterns regarding domestic violence and stalking. It is accepted for a female not to report it and still have a valid claim. But if I man does not report stalking he is basically FOS.

 

[Arabian Girl]

Just another double standard in her illogical thinking patterns regarding domestic violence and stalking. It is accepted for a female not to report it and still have a valid claim. But if I man does not report stalking he is basically FOS.

Totally. Hopefully after this case a lot more will come forward!

 

[Sophieandme]

Remember, ALL CLIENTS are innocent until prove guilty in a court of law. Now, an attorney cannot suborn perjury, and he cannot KNOWINGLY allow his client to lie on the stand. An attorneys job is to "poke holes" in the prosecutions case.

An example: I can drive from LA to San Francisco by driving up 1/101 or the 5 or the 99. We end up in the same place, "San Francisco". The defense is FORCED to accept whatever tall tale the client tell them...jodi is a TERRIBLE liar...she doesn't think out the many variables, AND she thinks people are STUPID. So, the defense is left trying to poke holes in the prosecutions case. (Or they can ask to be taken off the case! Which Nurmi has done a minimum of four times. He DOESN'T WANT TO DEFEND THIS CLIENT! He KNOWS she is a LIAR!!! But the judge is FORCING him to defend her! In a way, I feel kinda sorry for WandaNurmi!! They could POSSIBLY see years of study, work and passing the bar go right down the water closet!! If they win...they win big time...& will have more (guilty) clients than they want...if they lose...well...you know...

Jodi and the DT have to play the game they are playing...her life and their careers are "on the line"

Most certainly, Wilma read Dr D's report...but who knows if she actually MET Dr D...and what the result was?

BBM Yes, she did interview Dr. D before trial...Wilma referred to this in her cross examination of Dr. D. :seeya:

 

[camcneishg]

Remember, ALL CLIENTS are innocent until prove guilty in a court of law. Now, an attorney cannot suborn perjury, and he cannot KNOWINGLY allow his client to lie on the stand. An attorneys job is to "poke holes" in the prosecutions case.

An example: I can drive from LA to San Francisco by driving up 1/101 or the 5 or the 99. We end up in the same place, "San Francisco". The defense is FORCED to accept whatever tall tale the client tell them...jodi is a TERRIBLE liar...she doesn't think out the many variables, AND she thinks people are STUPID. So, the defense is left trying to poke holes in the prosecutions case. (Or they can ask to be taken off the case! Which Nurmi has done a minimum of four times. He DOESN'T WANT TO DEFEND THIS CLIENT! He KNOWS she is a LIAR!!! But the judge is FORCING him to defend her! In a way, I feel kinda sorry for WandaNurmi!! They could POSSIBLY see years of study, work and passing the bar go right down the water closet!! If they win...they win big time...& will have more (guilty) clients than they want...if they lose...well...you know...

Jodi and the DT have to play the game they are playing...her life and their careers are "on the line"

Most certainly, Wilma read Dr D's report...but who knows if she actually MET Dr D...and what the result was?

IIRC...Willmont did meet with Dr. D......something was brought up in trial about the bill that was sent to Willmont from Dr. D regarding their interview.....

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Do you remember when Sting was puzzled by the number of brides and grooms who played this as a first song in weddings? He was confused b/c this song is about a stalker, not love!:floorlaugh:

When I first heard the song, I don't think I had any real knowledge of what stalking encompassed, but my friends loved it and I remember thinking, "guess I will never get married because if that's love, I won't be able to even pee in peace." lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kaydono]

Totally. Hopefully after this case a lot more will come forward!

I believe, a lot of instances, that the stalkers are more dangerous than the abusers. Not always, but stalkers are calculating which is frightening.

 

[raisincharlie]

:seeya: How awesome that this is the FIRST post I read today!

Back at you :seeya:

 

[Arabian Girl]

Maybe the reason TA let Jodi in that night was she wanted to give him *whatever* evidence she had...phone tape, other pictures? and that she regretted threatening to blackmail him. Do we know WHY he was sooo angry on the May 26 text? Did she threaten him then? Why would he use the term 'sociopath' except meaning someone with no conscience?

Or that she was delivering his check while there for blah blah blah? Hard to understand.

All the missing pieces keep one wondering.

 

[kaydono]

Abnormal Psychology and Criminology were my two favorite courses in college. Criminal Justice was a fascinating degree to earn. I loved it.

 

[Alexander family fan]

Thank you, BritsKate. I agree with you. I work with victims of DV on a daily basis and ALV lost all credibility with me when she testified that JA's behavior was not stalking because Travis took no actions to stop it. First of all, stalking is called "stalking" because it is frequently done in a manner that the victim will not know about it (e.g. cyberstalking, peering in windows at night). Because the victim is unaware of the behavior does not make the behavior non-criminal. Pursuant to ALV's opinion, the unaware victim is not a victim. Furthermore, it is well-known that victims of DV often do not react as ALV expected Travis to do by filing police reports. The reasons for not reporting are numerous. It galled me that she could use one of the most well-known facts about DV to state that Travis was not a victim. I wonder if she applies this "standard of reporting" when talking to/about the victims she counsels.

Thank you!!! lease:lease:lease:

 

[kaydono]

Maybe the reason TA let Jodi in that night was she wanted to give him *whatever* evidence she had...phone tape, other pictures? and that she regretted threatening to blackmail him. Do we know WHY he was sooo angry on the May 26 text? Did she threaten him then? Why would he use the term 'sociopath' except meaning someone with no conscience?

Or that she was delivering his check while there for blah blah blah? Hard to understand.

All the missing pieces keep one wondering.

Sad thing is we will prolly never know the "why". The catalyst that started it all.