long weekend break: discuss the latest here #101

[Bada Bing]

I am a genealogist and I did one hour of Jodi's tree today on mom's side. It's a shame but she comes from a nice line of people from California>Indiana>South Carolina.

 

[Nosey Parker]

re the bbm~

What does that mean? How would Juan have a copy of his notes but the defense not. Juan couldn't have gotten them from anyone except the defense, no?

It sounded to me that Samuels sent this to Juan's expert - reciprocal exchange.

 

[G&AMom]

Read this article by Alyce LaViolette that somebody posted earlier:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/docs/LaViolette_JCC.pdf

She seems world's away from "Dr." S. She's published something, for one thing.

At this point, I'm inclined to think that she's going to base her testimony on the information she received from the defense: Jodi's lies and bits and snippets of emails & texts. Just as JW did yesterday, by focusing on words or phrases in the texts from Travis, I'd be willing to bet that that is all the DV expert has seen. Just like with the phone sex tape, though, once you see all the communications, it's a whole different story. I would guess that JM will be able to counter her testimony pretty easily.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I love watching Juan! He paces around the courtroom like a panther!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have mixed feelings. I LIKE JUAN MARTINEZ, let's get that said right now. I see that his style is NECESSARY for the likes of JA and, really, any witness that he knows or suspects to be lying or holding back in any way. It WORKS. Maybe it's because I've watched many more trials by now and I understand it a little better.

That said, the way he crosses his arms and is so nasty at times reminds me of the lawyer in the David Westerfield trial (he raped and murdered 7-yr-old Danielle Van Dam in 2002), Steven Feldman. I could not STAND Feldman! If I look at it from the point of view that he reviled each and every person on the stand in order to get the truth out of them, then his strategy was like JM's strategy, except that SF KNEW FOR A FACT that his client actually murdered the little girl (DW knew where the body was and was about to tell them as part of a plea bargain, but they found her first), yet he eviscerated her parents for their swinging lifestyle, tried to blame child on his client's OWN SON, and showed utter contempt for pretty much every prosecution witness.

I know that a defense lawyer is supposed to test the proof of the State's case in a "vigorous" manner. If his/her lies, deceptions, finger-pointing and sneers can poke a hole in the State's case, then that's proof he/she is doing their job and that the State's case could not hold up and could, therefore, not be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. It's truly disgusting, though, that attorneys are allowed to get away with so many underhanded tactics in order to achieve that goal.

So, like I said, I LIKE JM and think his style is absolutely necessary and effective under the circumstances, but it definitely causes me to feel an uncomfortable reminder to Steven Feldman defending David Westerfield. I consider SF to have been smarmy, sleazy, and deceitful in that one trial I saw him in.

 

[katiedid2]

Question??
Since the jury is not sequestered! Can they research PTSD and all this stuff Samuels is trying to pass off ?

 

[G&AMom]

re the bbm~

What does that mean? How would Juan have a copy of his notes but the defense not. Juan couldn't have gotten them from anyone except the defense, no?

I found this part of the testimony, at the very end of the afternoon, very confusing. I wish they had allowed JM to finish. It appeared to me that what JM was getting at was that the scoring sheet that Samuels is now saying he used to score JA's test the 2nd time was actually in the possession of the defense team and he eventually got back a xerox copy. So he couldn't have used it to produce the 2nd test score (Ex. 550) because he didn't have it.

Is that sufficiently head spinning? I don't really get it entirely myself, but I'm pretty sure the important factor here is that what the Doc now has is a copy he got from someone else and he did not have the original when he was preparing for trial.

 

[thefragile7393]

I have mixed feelings. I LIKE JUAN MARTINEZ, let's get that said right now. I see that his style is NECESSARY for the likes of JA and, really, any witness that he knows or suspects to be lying or holding back in any way. It WORKS. Maybe it's because I've watched many more trials by now and I understand it a little better.

That said, the way he crosses his arms and is so nasty at times reminds me of the lawyer in the David Westerfield trial (he raped and murdered 7-yr-old Danielle Van Dam in 2002), Steven Feldman. I could not STAND Feldman! If I look at it from the point of view that he reviled each and every person on the stand in order to get the truth out of them, then his strategy was like JM's strategy, except that SF KNEW FOR A FACT that his client actually murdered the little girl (DW knew where the body was and was about to tell them as part of a plea bargain, but they found her first), yet he eviscerated her parents for their swinging lifestyle, tried to blame child on his client's OWN SON, and showed utter contempt for pretty much every prosecution witness.

I know that a defense lawyer is supposed to test the proof of the State's case in a "vigorous" manner. If his/her lies, deceptions, finger-pointing and sneers can poke a hole in the State's case, then that's proof he/she is doing their job and that the State's case could not hold up and could, therefore, not be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. It's truly disgusting, though, that attorneys are allowed to get away with so many underhanded tactics in order to achieve that goal.

So, like I said, I LIKE JM and think his style is absolutely necessary and effective under the circumstances, but it definitely causes me to feel an uncomfortable reminder to Steven Feldman defending David Westerfield. I consider SF to have been smarmy, sleazy, and deceitful in that one trial I saw him in.

JM is a prosecutor though....you're comparing apples to oranges...even though I get what you are saying. JM is nothing like Feldman except one is passionate FOR the victim.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[G&AMom]

Oh--I know she was battered, but she *did* enjoy the activities with her husband, too. Is it wrong to be glad she was beaten?:floorlaugh: Just kidding--she and her husband were a pair of sick, sick people. She facilitated the drugging, rape and murder of her own little sister & then went ahead with that over-the-top wedding soon afterwards. I think she's missing her soul.

I find Karla Homolka so disturbing that I can't stand to read or hear about that case at all. I couldn't believe it when I heard she got out of prison. I can't believe too many Canadians were thrilled about it either. Sometimes I think we should bring back Devil's Island.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I have mixed feelings. I LIKE JUAN MARTINEZ, let's get that said right now. I see that his style is NECESSARY for the likes of JA and, really, any witness that he knows or suspects to be lying or holding back in any way. It WORKS. Maybe it's because I've watched many more trials by now and I understand it a little better.

That said, the way he crosses his arms and is so nasty at times reminds me of the lawyer in the David Westerfield trial (he raped and murdered 7-yr-old Danielle Van Dam in 2002), Steven Feldman. I could not STAND Feldman! If I look at it from the point of view that he reviled each and every person on the stand in order to get the truth out of them, then his strategy was like JM's strategy, except that SF KNEW FOR A FACT that his client actually murdered the little girl (DW knew where the body was and was about to tell them as part of a plea bargain, but they found her first), yet he eviscerated her parents for their swinging lifestyle, tried to blame child on his client's OWN SON, and showed utter contempt for pretty much every prosecution witness.

I know that a defense lawyer is supposed to test the proof of the State's case in a "vigorous" manner. If his/her lies, deceptions, finger-pointing and sneers can poke a hole in the State's case, then that's proof he/she is doing their job and that the State's case could not hold up and could, therefore, not be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. It's truly disgusting, though, that attorneys are allowed to get away with so many underhanded tactics in order to achieve that goal.

So, like I said, I LIKE JM and think his style is absolutely necessary and effective under the circumstances, but it definitely causes me to feel an uncomfortable reminder to Steven Feldman defending David Westerfield. I consider SF to have been smarmy, sleazy, and deceitful in that one trial I saw him in.

I understand the comparison you are making, but it is kind of like apples to oranges. Mr. Martinez is a prosecutor. His responsibility is to expose the truth on behalf of the State of Arizona, not to defend a murderer.

 

[Karmady]

It sounded to me that Samuels sent this to Juan's expert - reciprocal exchange.

But the defense would surely have controlled that or at least had access to what was disclosed. The way I read the bbm was that Samuels' testimony suggested that the defense was not aware of the document Juan had. Is that the way you meant it, or am I reading too much into it?

 

[G&AMom]

Question??
Since the jury is not sequestered! Can they research PTSD and all this stuff Samuels is trying to pass off ?

They're not supposed to. There's all kinds of stuff on the internet that it not real research. Even on this board, where many have reported their PTSD symptoms, there's a disagreement on how people with it behave. So I would hope they wouldn't check.

 

[HarvestMoon]

I do think at least one juror may buy the fognesia nonsense.

 

[josie1986]

Read this article by Alyce LaViolette that somebody posted earlier:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/docs/LaViolette_JCC.pdf

She seems world's away from "Dr." S. She's published something, for one thing.

At this point, I'm inclined to think that she's going to base her testimony on the information she received from the defense: Jodi's lies and bits and snippets of emails & texts. Just as JW did yesterday, by focusing on words or phrases in the texts from Travis, I'd be willing to bet that that is all the DV expert has seen. Just like with the phone sex tape, though, once you see all the communications, it's a whole different story. I would guess that JM will be able to counter her testimony pretty easily.

I brought Kcls post over from that court observer thread concerning dr bozo and AL.

Dr bozo was asked if Jodi would have had shaking before the murder and he said "highly unlikely" what kcl said and I agree he has pretty much destroyed AL's "battered woman" statement in two words.

I'm using my iPod so I can't work out how to get round this yet so used to my android if I can get this figured out ill repost if you want


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[josie1986]

I do think at least one juror may buy the fognesia story.

They may believe it but does that justify her planning to murder travis and carrying it out? IMO no


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[katiedid2]

They're not supposed to. There's all kinds of stuff on the internet that it not real research. Even on this board, where many have reported their PTSD symptoms, there's a disagreement on how people with it behave. So I would hope they wouldn't check.

Thank you
Wow not being sequestered! Makes you wonder how much they accidentally see like magazines at grocery store etc out and about, I mean all jurors are locals.

 

[Softail]

Question??
Since the jury is not sequestered! Can they research PTSD and all this stuff Samuels is trying to pass off ?

:nono: No way! They are not supposed to do ANY research on their own. They are only to base their decision on what is presented in court.

 

[seguek9]

Yes, I made this post before this news.

I just saw her crying earlier and kinda reminded me of Susan S. :twocents:

Is there a seperate thread for this? Lets not clutter this one :truce:
I will go look around the main boards

ETA: GA - Mom said Teens killed her baby; shot her in the leg *ARREST!* - Page 14 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

HERE WE GO, FOUND IT!!!

 

[ElleElle]

Yes both Karla and Jodi need a lobodomy.

I find Karla Homolka so disturbing that I can't stand to read or hear about that case at all. I couldn't believe it when I heard she got out of prison. I can't believe too many Canadians were thrilled about it either. Sometimes I think we should bring back Devil's Island.

 

[G&AMom]

I brought Kcls post over from that court observer thread concerning dr bozo and AL.

Dr bozo was asked if Jodi would have had shaking before the murder and he said "highly unlikely" what kcl said and I agree he has pretty much destroyed AL's "battered woman" statement in two words.

I'm using my iPod so I can't work out how to get round this yet so used to my android if I can get this figured out ill repost if you want


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I read it, thanks. Yes, I agree, this will definitely help counter anything the DV is going to say. I don't think she will come across as big an idiot as the "Dr." But I don't think JM is going to have any problem with her.

 

[JRS_JD2L]

Question??
Since the jury is not sequestered! Can they research PTSD and all this stuff Samuels is trying to pass off ?

No. Sequestered or not, the jurors are instructed not to access anything about the case. The only info they're supposed to use in their decision is the evidence produced during trial. In reality?