04/22/2013 - waiting for rebuttal to continue

[JustJudy]

Geeze I just looked at that photo of Travis. Hadn't seen that one before. How ghastly.

May I suggest to us all, remember to note "graphic material" when posting a link to....graphic material.

I, for one, really wish I could unsee Jodi's...uh...stuff. :gasp:

 

[Nezumi]

Skimmed through the posts and didn't see this mentioned.....did the DT remove their motion for surrebuttal? It's been removed from the Case info. Prosecution's objection and request for surrebuttal witness' and testimonies are still up.View attachment 32521

I still see it listed.

 

[nursebeeme]

The new thread is open and ready for everyone to move on over. Please review the rules before posting. Doors close here in 5 minutes

trial day 51: REBUTTAL; #156 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:thewave:​

:drumroll::seeya::drumroll:

 

[kaRN]

I honestly believe that they have all bonded with Martinez, grown accustomed to his pitball style cross examinations and will trust him to guide them, step by step, in reaching an appropriate verdict. I hope I am right.

I agree and hope we both are right! I also believe these are DP qualified jurors who have a strong sense of civic duty. Part of that is likely a belief that the State doesn't just pickup random innocents to charge with crimes at whim. The State has made a great case without treating the jury like morons. The DT on the other hand pushes the limit on credibility everyday.

 

[sace]

Well well, another expert witness sounds like it will be the 3 stooges if he is allowed...totally discredited as a witness in another trial. Just scroll down his name is highlighted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...dr+geffner+testified&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[kayice]

Your post just made a lightbulb go off in my head!!
Throughout the trial JA has denied being jealous. IIRC her exerts also deemed her free of jealousy. If not jealousy, what emotion could possibly have inspired such great sudden passion while TA was taking a shower of all things??

yep, jealous he could move on...get into shape, not for her but for himself, making plans that did not include Jodi, ever again. Travis probably reinforced that he was onto her games now, he could no longer be played.

(Just hearing Jodi talk about Travis' king size bed in the Flores interviews, just wow...the jealousy and envy of this man just drips, ...hideously.)

 

[Bravo]

Does it say "Sheriff Joe's" on the front??????

LOL The front has a Sheriff badge and has Sheriff written in the middle. Maricopa County above. Below just says Arizona. Back of t shirt says Maricopa County Bed and Breakfast :floorlaugh: I got it at a huge flea market last year just outside/near Mesa.

 

[tss]

I haven't caught up on posts from late yesterday and overnight, and I'm sure that someone has already posted this. When I was telling DH about new developments in the case last night, he said, "Well, you know who's driving the "manslaughter" option. "It's Jodi." I wasn't sure what he meant until he reminded me of an interview that Bryan Carr did with JVM or NG when he said that the manslaughter verdict is what Jodi expected and that she would walk for time served. I did a cursory search on the HLN site but can't be sure which interview it might be. Has someone already posted this? If not, I'll try to find it.

I don't know if anyone replied yet. I'm getting a late start and just read your post. When I "google" search I came across links to written Transcripts and both NG & JVM's shows can be found...just need a date, or sometimes you can find it by adding another Key Word in your search box...gotta date?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ng.html

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Wow, Jan 24 2008 and she talks about Mimi Hall.

I'm going to have to give up on the tracking journals thingy for tonight, I'm starting to see double, my dog needs to water the lawn yet and I need some much needed sleep.

G'nite all!

Goooooood morning peeps!!
Any seats left? I'm tall. so a back seat is fine, but I have long legs, so if there's an isle seat, may I have it?

Dana, wicki is written by any peeps that choose to, and a site we can't post here - one of their members have taken it upon themself to make up her own facts. Don't trust it.

I'm SO ready for today. Do we know who's up?

 

[redbud]

I think this trial would have went a complete different direction with a different judge IMO
She seems to have no back bone and very little regard for this poor jury.

I agree. At first I thought she was just making sure there would be no issues for appeal and she secretly thought Jodi deserved DP too. Now I'm worried no matter what she thinks her rulings will effect the outcome in a negative way.

 

[justsharing]

I have a friend who is a graphologist/handwriting analyst and I've always been interested in it/found it fascinating. Glad you liked the video.

My sister had her handwriting analyzed years ago, she had a bit of "the crazies herself". I loved her dearly but she did many things that just made me wonder about her. Anyway this three page report on her was more spot on than I, my mother or anyone could have done. To think a stranger could pinpoint her to a tee was impressive, IMO.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Well well, another expert witness sounds like it will be the 3 stooges if he is allowed...totally discredited as a witness in another trial. Just scroll down his name is highlighted.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...dr+geffner+testified&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Thanks for the link!! It reads in part:

The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner's affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark's conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark's childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark's attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner's affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue. The state court noted that Clark testified that he had not taken any drugs on the day of the murders, and found that Clark's trial counsel had no indication that Clark was suffering from drug withdrawal at the time of the murders. Moreover, the state court pointed out that, in any event, evidence that Clark was acting under a drug-induced delusion when he committed the murders would have been immaterial to an insanity defense and "would not have conflicted with the overwhelming evidence of deliberateness."



Doesn't sound like much competition for our Juan!!!

 

[nursebeeme]

The new thread is open and ready for everyone to move on over. Please review the rules before posting. Doors are now closed.

trial day 51: REBUTTAL; #156 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:thewave:​

:drumroll::rocker::drumroll: