long weekend break: discuss the latest here #101

[Pink Panther]

What do you think must be going thru LaViolette's mind after Samuel's little tete a tete with Juan?lease:

Didn't someone say that the lady who vomited the other day was a witness?

 

[KBisMe]

Somebody might have posted this already, but I LOVE it!!! The heat is Juan! :great:

[video=youtube;rJgkugEsZWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJgkugEsZWI[/video]

 

[Pink Panther]

Here ya go, but it comes after the remainder of Wilmott's re-direct.


Jodi Arias Trial - Day 35 - Part 3 - YouTube

Easy to skip through. I think JM starts at about 26:00.

:blushing:

 

[MeeBee]

Didn't someone say that the lady who vomited the other day was a witness?

If she was a witness she wouldn't be in the court room.

 

[Arishia]

I don't know if anyone has posited this yet, but I've always thought she held the gun on him while she began stabbing him. If he was sitting there under threat of a gun, he may have been waiting for an opportunity to grab it or to get away. If he lunged to escape the shower, maybe she stabbed him in the chest and that's when he staggered to the sink and the rest of the events occurred.

I can't figure how else it could have happened, and truly it's disturbing to even think about.

And the killer's not going to tell the truth unless maybe she's sitting on death row and thinks it'll get her some last bit of attention.

Just MOO.

My opinion on this conundrum is to follow the forensic evidence first. Limit your reconstructions to the scientific evidence. Avoid trying to get into JA's head. Just don't go there. It's a house of mirrors, smoke and mirrors, a house of horrors, whatever, just don't go there.

 

[kayice]

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2iupea&s=6

I hope this works, I don't get into trouble. Ala finger Arias.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Was MM at a hearing as well? Were these hearings televised?

There are two minute entries for 8-8 - one of them are sealed. Here's part of the one that's not:


The Defendant makes an oral Motion to Represent Herself. The Defendant is given a
Waiver of Counsel form to review.
IT IS ORDERED Pursuant to Rule 6.1 the Waiver of Counsel is accepted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing the Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to
represent the Defendant as advisory counsel. Victoria Washington shall be considered the firstadvisory counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all monies to be paid by the Public Defender’s Office
unless by ruling of this Court.
11:33 a.m. The Court stands at recess.
11:54 a.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
IT IS ORDERED the Defendant is to interview the two defense witnesses by telephone
and then advise the Court if the witnesses need to be present for testimony.
12:09 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
1:33 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
Defense Motion to Close Pretrial Hearings is argued to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Defense Motion to Close Pretrial Hearings as to this
hearing only.
Defense invokes the Rule of Exclusion.
Defense makes an oral Motion to Continue this Evidentiary Hearing.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defense Motion to Continue this Evidentiary Hearing.
Defense makes an oral Motion to Stay these Proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defense Motion to Stay these Proceedings.
Opening statements.
State’s case:
State’s exhibits 1 and 2 are marked for identification.
Steven Roberts is sworn and testifies.
The witness is excused.
Deanna Reid is sworn and testifies.
State’s exhibit 3 is marked for identification.
State’s exhibit 3 is received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
Christina Lopez is sworn and testifies.
The witness steps down.
2:16 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
2:35 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present
Christina Lopez retakes the stand and testifies further.
The witness makes an in-court identification of the Defendant.
State’s exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7 are marked for identification.
State’s exhibits 4 and 5 are received into evidence over the Defense objection.
State’s exhibit 6 is received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
2:48 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
3:12 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Alan Kreitl is sworn and testifies.
State’s exhibits 1 and 2 are received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
The State rests.
Defense case:
3:48 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
4:06 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
State’s exhibit 8 is marked for identification.
State’s exhibit 8 is received into evidence.
4:07 p.m. The Court stands at recess until 10:30 a.m. on August 9, 2011

MM may have been at the sealed meeting. I'm just waiting to see those exhibits, and I think we will see ALL of them in the rebuttal case.
It doesn't look like the DT had much of a case to put on. smile:blushing:

 

[Dmacky]

What do you think must be going thru LaViolette's mind after Samuel's little tete a tete with Juan?lease:

"No Clinical Judgement Sir" :snooty:

 

[Pink Panther]

If she was a witness she wouldn't be in the court room.

I'm not sure but I think that Expert Witnesses are exempt from that rule.

 

[G&AMom]

Re: The jury's questions. I know that many of you thought the questions seemed sarcastic, but I honestly did not feel that way about some of them. Yes, I heard and felt the sarcasm in many, if not most of the questions the jury submitted for Jodi, but I didn't get the same vibe yesterday. This doesn't necessarily mean that the jury is buying what the doc is selling. Their curiosity is obvious, and I think that some of the jurors wanted clarification on some of RS' findings.

There might be some folks on the jury with limited knowledge or experience with psychology/psychiatry, testing instruments, the evaluation process for someone who is charged with a heinous crime. I think it's safe to say that not everyone on the jury has a college degree or a professional title, so it's understandable that not everyone will immediately grasp all of the minute details that Dr. Samuels provided. :moo:

This was my sense as well. I did not get the sense that they were necessarily agreeing with him. Even the question about whether she could have "snapped" seemed genuine to me. A lot of times when some horrible crime occurs, the friends & neighbors will say the perpetrator "snapped." I think the idea has basically been debunked by now, but it's a legitimate question. I personally didn't read too much into these questions beyond a genuine desire to know the answer.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm not sure but I think that Expert Witnesses are exempt from that rule.

I don't know if that's true but Katie DDJ said she was just an elderly woman who she talked to just before she vomited. I don't think anyone said she was a witness. KCL had said someone else was a witness to Doc Sam rolling through the vomit, but no one has said she was a witness.

 

[fabvab]

Does the jury know the psychologist also sent Jodi cards?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My response to above:

I have heard about the Greeting cards from the so-called dr, but I don't recall said cards being in evidence. I didn't watch the entire trial, but to the best of my knowledge, the only thing that has been brought in so far is the self-help book he sent her. (Jodi slashing Travis's tires on several occasions, also has not been brought in as far as I know).

Didn't one of the young ladies mention the slashed tires? I can't remember who it was.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

On After Dark last night they discuss the knife did she or didnt she bring a a knife. Ive had to think about it. Jodis first story is she wasnt there , then second it was ninjas and third self defense. She planned the attack to look like a intruder did it , she brought every thing she needed to complete what she had planned, so i figure she brought the knife too, as an intruder wouldnt take the time to get a knife from the kitchen if they had a gun and were upstairs.

I think Juan's point was that she didn't have TIME to go find ANY knife - she had to have had it on her person at the time of the attack.

 

[Teresa]

For closing, I think JM should put this test up on the courtroom's whiteboard and have everyone on the jury take the test.

After a reasonable amount of time has passed, he should then throw up the score interpretations.

Perhaps, he could go one step further and have the jurors answer the test questions the way they believe someone with PTSD would answer them.

Then, ask them if they believe an experienced liar would be able to skirt the test?

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Remember the glove in the O.J. trial?!

 

[SoBeCzar]

I have compassion for my fellow man but I would not say I feel sorry for them. I do not like it when either side tries to mold someones testimony into something it is not. I think the "dr" has been inept and careless (along with more descriptive words) but I can understand what he meant.

 

[neesaki]

You would be surprised at the people in my neck of woods that would don't like Juan (claiming that he is a jerk and a b$stard) and would let Jodi off for that reason. Of course they have not followed the trial - just seen bits and pieces. I hope these people in my neck of the woods that would let Jodi off because of Juan are NEVER on a jury. People scare me.

I think Juan is great and is doing a fantastic job.

That is rather strange that they would have negative feelings about a prosecutor unless perhaps they or their family have at some time been prosecuted for some criminal conduct, or have fears that they will be. How else could / would they hold a strong opinion one way or another, unless they empathize and side with the criminal ? JMO

 

[Veritas_Vita]

I googled this, but all I found was the people thought it might be possible. I thought I might find someone who claimed on FB that they'd fooled a camera, but I couldn't find anything. Even the people who work with the cameras don't seem to know. It appears to be an urban legend -- although that could mean that Jodi had heard it would work.

I distinctly remember JM asking JA, "Nobody ever saw you in AZ, did they?"
I remember JA responding something to the effect of, "Not true, there should be cameras."

I'm paraphrasing here I'm positive this was the gist of the exchange.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Remember the glove in the O.J. trial?!

Yeah, that all sounds really unnecessary, lol. I'd be like, uh, ok?...People are always suggesting these theatrics for Juan to try and I think it's just silly. If he sticks to his case and the evidence at hand, he won't need any dummies, or sets. He's good enough with his words and presentation that the jury will get it.

 

[JRS_JD2L]

I hate to ask, but can someon post the youtube link for the redirect between JM and the Doctor at the end of the day yesterday.

Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6USg__UaHLs

Enjoy! Starts a little more than halfway.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

There are two minute entries for 8-8 - one of them are sealed. Here's part of the one that's not:


The Defendant makes an oral Motion to Represent Herself. The Defendant is given a
Waiver of Counsel form to review.
IT IS ORDERED Pursuant to Rule 6.1 the Waiver of Counsel is accepted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing the Kirk Nurmi and Victoria Washington to
represent the Defendant as advisory counsel. Victoria Washington shall be considered the firstadvisory counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all monies to be paid by the Public Defender’s Office
unless by ruling of this Court.
11:33 a.m. The Court stands at recess.
11:54 a.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
IT IS ORDERED the Defendant is to interview the two defense witnesses by telephone
and then advise the Court if the witnesses need to be present for testimony.
12:09 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
1:33 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
Defense Motion to Close Pretrial Hearings is argued to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Defense Motion to Close Pretrial Hearings as to this
hearing only.
Defense invokes the Rule of Exclusion.
Defense makes an oral Motion to Continue this Evidentiary Hearing.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defense Motion to Continue this Evidentiary Hearing.
Defense makes an oral Motion to Stay these Proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defense Motion to Stay these Proceedings.
Opening statements.
State’s case:
State’s exhibits 1 and 2 are marked for identification.
Steven Roberts is sworn and testifies.
The witness is excused.
Deanna Reid is sworn and testifies.
State’s exhibit 3 is marked for identification.
State’s exhibit 3 is received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
Christina Lopez is sworn and testifies.
The witness steps down.
2:16 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
2:35 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present
Christina Lopez retakes the stand and testifies further.
The witness makes an in-court identification of the Defendant.
State’s exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7 are marked for identification.
State’s exhibits 4 and 5 are received into evidence over the Defense objection.
State’s exhibit 6 is received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
2:48 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
3:12 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Alan Kreitl is sworn and testifies.
State’s exhibits 1 and 2 are received into evidence.
The witness is excused.
The State rests.
Defense case:
3:48 p.m. The Court stands at recess.
4:06 p.m. The Court reconvenes with respective counsel and the Defendant present.
Court Reporter, Michael Babicky, is present.
A record of the proceeding is also made by audio and/or videotape.
Discussion held.
State’s exhibit 8 is marked for identification.
State’s exhibit 8 is received into evidence.
4:07 p.m. The Court stands at recess until 10:30 a.m. on August 9, 2011

MM may have been at the sealed meeting. I'm just waiting to see those exhibits, and I think we will see ALL of them in the rebuttal case.
It doesn't look like the DT had much of a case to put on. smile:blushing:

Thank you! Does anyone know who some of these people are though? Who is Christina Lopez? And who are Steve Roberts and Alan Kreitl? TIA.