a view from the inside: observations from our own court observers #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a resort that has really good rates for extended stay... When I checked I think it was $98 or so.... It's about 12 miles from the courthouse which isn't super close, but still it's another option....might be nice to have a "get-a-way" away from all the hustle n' bustle....

http://www.shellhospitality.com/en/...specials/extended-stay-special-at-orange-tree


Luxury Hotel Suites
SAVOR SPACIOUS SUITES AND AMPLE AMENITIES

Each suite at Orange Tree Golf Resort in Scottsdale is designed with a perfect blend of comfort and style — and feels like your home away from home.

Each of our 160 spacious, air-conditioned & non-smoking suites is exquisitely decorated in modern style. Large living and sleeping areas are complemented with luxurious amenities, and each suite is beautifully accented with French doors that open onto a terrace and breathtaking views of the surrounding desert.

Suite Features & Amenities:

160 luxuriously appointed 740-square foot suites with private decks
All suites are non-smoking
King bed or two double sized beds
Pull out sofa bed for extra guests (queen)
Tempur-Pedic sleep systems
Two-person whirlpool tub
32" TV with DVD player in Living Room
15” TV in bedroom
Kitchenette with a refrigerator
Microwave/toaster
Wireless Internet access
Double vanity
Dual sinks
AM-FM Stereo
iPod dock with speakers and built-in alarm clock
Coffeemaker
Hairdryer
In-room safe



Just one more tidbit that came in yesterday.

Our Sweetiepie (our friend we've all embraced) Bill from the Dr. Drew Show, asked the Palomar PR person for assistance for the Alexander family as it's the closest hotel to the courthouse (and where most media stay).

He negotiated a rate for them around 50% off (still pricey but anyway).

I'm thinking it would be great during verdict watch for them to stay there a couple of nights because of proximity (I don't think deliberations will be that long imo).

It'd be nice if we could help them out with that when the time comes. I'd cover a night for them myself.

I emailed the family just now with info about the house one of our posters told me about and also this Palomar rate. Just keeping you all in the loop.
 
Yup, that's her. And that assertion confirms to me she's semi nuts. Not a bad person but I mean really..come on.

I have been in a funk all evening since hearing her. That statement really upset me. All I could think of was first OJ, then CA and now this one too!
 
I don't know if she volunteered however I do know that 7 other DvE's said NO to the defense.

I heard early this evening on HLN she is being paid $300/hr. I'll see if I can find the info to back it up.
 
Yup, that's her. And that assertion confirms to me she's semi nuts. Not a bad person but I mean really..come on.

Lol! No way...hahaha...I am so glad she's not one of "us" (websleuthers)... She was CUCKOO!

I wonder who she thinks wants the "spotlight" as "the one who hung the jury"?! Any ideas? ...that is so ridiculous..can you even imagine someone thinking that?!
 
I have been in a funk all evening since hearing her. That statement really upset me. All I could think of was first OJ, then CA and now this one too!

Give her no credence. She's not "right" on a lot of levels. I'm not worried about this jury or this verdict. AT ALL.

I'm nuts in my own ways but I have a lot more clarity on this than she does. I invite you in to my confidence.
 
Lol! No way...hahaha...I am so glad she's not one of "us" (websleuthers)... She was CUCKOO!

I wonder who she thinks wants the "spotlight" as "the one who hung the jury"?! Any ideas? ...that is so ridiculous..can you even imagine someone thinking that?!

Who would want that INfamy. No it's not even accurate. There are no "lone wolfs" on this jury that demonstrate that kind of thing. Maybe SHE would be a person like that but no, none of them. That comment, I'll say it, was just ignorant.
 
That's my question also,especially since Travis' family was asked not to wear them anymore because of Jodi.

Was this a different one than TA's family was wearing? It looks very small, but that could just be because she is further from the camera.

auntie.jpg

I don't know all the players in court, but a lady behind TA's family was wearing a ribbon. Is she a member of the family too?

ribbon.jpg
 
I heard early this evening on HLN she is being paid $300/hr. I'll see if I can find the info to back it up.

Originally Posted by Kattrca
I don't know if she volunteered however I do know that 7 other DvE's said NO to the defense.

I thought JW asked her today and she said $350hr for research, and $300hr for speaking... Does anyone else remember hearing that?
 
good evening lovely ladies. I don't know if this has been said yet but I feel so relieved that Christy, from In Session was on DD tonight stating ALV WILL NOT BE APPLYING her expertise to JA and or TA because she did NOT ASSESS JA! CONFIRMATION she will only be an educator on DV.
 
Who would want that INfamy. No it's not even accurate. There are no "lone wolfs" on this jury that demonstrate that kind of thing. Maybe SHE would be a person like that but no, none of them. That comment, I'll say it, was just ignorant.

KCL this woman has already proven that she wants iNfamy or In For Me. She has appeared on Dr Drew. Offering nothing tangible.
 
BBM

Can you believe that? I read somewhere that she actually drew the shape of the stone she wanted and wrote the words she wanted on it and everything.

I hope she also attached a Money Order for the full amount of the cost of it.
 
good evening lovely ladies. I don't know if this has been said yet but I feel so relieved that Christy, from In Session was on DD tonight stating ALV WILL NOT BE APPLYING her expertise to JA and or TA because she did NOT ASSESS JA! CONFIRMATION she will only be an educator on DV.

I hope this doesn't mean that Martinez cannot question re: the pedophilia lie that JA told her. He should still be able to ask her, right? Cross exam doesn't have to stick to what is asked on direct?
 
(snipped)

Anyway, since she hasn't interviewed JA, has she read anything about the case? If so, from what perspective? I mean, she is the DT's witness.

(snipped)

If she didn't interview JA, what's the point of her testimony? Are we going to get an endless stream of "I can't say with certainty that she was abused, but doing (or not doing) X would be consistent with someone who was" testimony?

Is the whole point - other than planting seeds in the jurors' minds - to try to get the judge to give this instruction that they have to look at JA's actions from the point of view of a battered woman when there has been zero evidence of it other than from the mouth of a known liar? Doesn't the defense need some semblance of evidence to switch the burden to the prosecution on that?

It looks like a mystery from here. Do you get some sense of what's actually going on from hanging around the courtroom?
 
I hope this doesn't mean that Martinez cannot question re: the pedophilia lie that JA told her. He should still be able to ask her, right? Cross exam doesn't have to stick to what is asked on direct?

maybe a better question for AZLawyer cause I don't know for sure, but good point on the pedo claim. I would assume she had to talk to JA to have been lied to, no?
 
maybe a better question for AZLawyer cause I don't know for sure, but good point on the pedo claim. I would assume she had to talk to JA to have been lied to, no?

I think she has talked to JA because JM questioned her on an inconsistency in the pedo story when she told it to LaViolette. I hope he can. I have been waiting for this moment so JM can finally set things right with that one. I would assume he still can since the pedophilia claim is a major part of the defense. I'll ask a lawyer!
 
I wasn't there, but I'm doubting it. Please nobody throw anything at me,.. But this part made me feel a little bad. It looked like she laughed a little and looked toward the jury. I'm guessing she got no reaction because she turned away and lost the smile quick. She looked uncomfortable and maybe a little embarrassed.

Something else that stood out to me was when she said she originally didn't want to work with men who were abusing their partners. She said it was hard for her because of all the things she had seen with the women and children who had been abused. This woman has probably seen things we wouldn't wish on anyone.

With that being said.... I am stumped at why she agreed to testify in this case.

:waitasec:

bbm
Same here, KBisMe. I wonder how much about this case she knew before she agreed to testify. Unless she is totally using this for her own selfish reasons (and I am NOT saying at all that she is), this doesn't sound like a case in which she would want to testify for the defense.

How much does she know about this case????
 
OMG!!! ...did any of you hear Jodi tell the investigator in the interrogation video that she's had a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN before?? I couldn't believe she said that!

That is HUGE! That proves that she had pre-existing stress disorder that had nothing to do with Travis!!

The other thing she said is that she wouldn't even hurt a "spider" which is something that "Matt McCarthy" wrote in a message he posted on the Jodi is innocent website. (I personally thought the message looked like it had really been written by a girl (someone Jodi asked to write it) pretending to sound like a guy...now, I really think that)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
238
Guests online
630
Total visitors
868

Forum statistics

Threads
625,831
Messages
18,511,362
Members
240,854
Latest member
owlmama
Back
Top