State rests rebuttal case- thread #166

[G&AMom]

And, the email Sky sent to Jodi? The one ALV referenced to.

Elle, which email are you talking about? Is this the one where Sky said she though Travis was treating Jodi badly?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Nefarias.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Truth Detector]

I understand the desire behind this but I don't understand the reasoning. Jodi has presented evidence beyond her own testimony. (The tape, the texts, the t-shirt.). This seems to call for some outside arbiter to evaluate what evidence is cacceptable before it can be submitted to a jury. That is what pre-trial hearings are for. I don't see the point.

The reason for my extreme disappointment in JSKS.

 

[kpm]

IMO this whole trial was only a game to JA after reading her plea and threat of what she would do.
She decided to kill Travis and leave his body naked as pay back for his threat to expose her. If I had to guess her secret was one that was sexual in nature.

All just MOO

 

[nawd68]

Someone help me out with KCL's post in the court observer's thread. What was the closed hearing about and why was the family happy?

 

[MidwestMama]

AZ:
It is a conversation between Chris Hughes and Findthebrad.

If the sentence starts with @CHughes it is FROM findthebrad TO Chris.
If the sentence starts with @findthebrad it is FROM Chris TO findthebrad.
Hope that helps

:tyou:

You are welcome! TwitterSpeak is very confusing if you are not on Twitter! I am not on Twitter either but my daughter explained it to me about 6 months ago :blushing:

 

[sammijo]

If all the above is true, why were they so quick to believe Travis was a pedophile when the DT confronted them with the forged letters?

From what I read, Nurmi told the Hughes the letters were in Travis' own words and in his handwriting. Nurmi was "oh-so-sorry" to have to be the one to break it to them, blah, blah, blah.

The Hughes were duped by the defense. When they found out, they came out very angrily.

It wouldn't be the first dirty, underhanded trick the defense tried. Can you imagine if two of Travis' very good friends had testified "against" him out of some misguided attempt to rectify what they thought was their unfair treatment of Jodi? What a coup for the defense that would be!

At least that's what it seems Nurmi was going for. And that fits with Jodi's MO of making herself into the victim. I'm sure it was an agenda she pushed.

Just MHOO, of course.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Someone help me out with KCL's post in the court observer's thread. What was the closed hearing about and why was the family happy?

Closed hearing was about whether Juan could bring in a witness AFTER Nurmi's surrebuttal witness. Assume happy faces means the answer was YES

 

[G&AMom]

Yay! I smiled when I saw your avatar! :seeya:

Just dropping by for a minute. The dog is annoyed with me for ignoring him, so I don't know how long I can stay (he trashes the house when he's bored or wants attention).

So, does the trial start at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow? And we're going to hear this new, uh, psychologist?

 

[al66pine]

How will Dr. H do on the stand, if called?
In another case, a civil case, a few yrs. ago, she testified for R.J Reynolds.

This clip is atty for the smoker (COPD, apparently)-plaintiff's cross exam of her (did not see direct exam).
He raises questions --
---so, no matter what you say about cig's & addiction,
it's still just an opinion.
--- goes thru her 23pp CV/resume & her website,
page by page, nothing about cigs, tobacco, addiction.
---asks about poss. consulting or testimony re other Big-Cig Trials in future.

I watched just 40 min.

She gets a wee bit defensive w. a few questions.
If she takes stand in AZ, she may do a little better w. more experience since then..
(By the offhand ref to New Orleans/Katrina, I take it this was recorded post 2005)
But no where near as belligerent as Dr. Dick S. or Alyce LaV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qF4zbATV3J0#

 

[Linda7NJ]

But that's the whole point of the petition, a kind of grass roots movement to change that somehow.

Just because its the state's burden to prove the defendant committed the crime they're being accused of, should not mean a defendant can come into court and make outrageous, slanderous comments with absolutely no proof to back it up, just to avoid the penalty for their crimes.

I keep thinking, what if Travis were seriously harmed, but he had lived? Jodi probably would have used this same defense or accused him of something else, with no proof. Yes, he would be here to defend himself, but that accusation of abuse and pedophilia would follow him the rest of his life. You cannot un-ring that bell. It's devastating.

Consider a man who was accused of molesting his own children, all because his soon-to-be ex wasn't getting what she wanted in the divorce settlement. He was a loving father and proved innocent, but some people will look sideways at him the rest of his life.

And there are "advocates" out there like LaViolette, who are all too willing to fight on a woman's behalf to prosecute a man, with zero proof.

Some kind of change needs to at least be put on the table for consideration. The defense of "My parents abused me - I can't be held responsible for any crime I commit.", has morphed into every excuse imaginable.

This is JMHOO.

IMO the justice system isn't perfect. I'll agree to that.

But the basic principle of the burden of proof is the prosecutions role ..protects everyone. It's not about the truth of the matter... It's about what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom.

The sole job of the defense is to manufacture reasonable doubt by any means necessary within the bounds of the law. Once a defendant waived their 5th amendment and takes the stand.. What comes out of their mouth IS evidence.

Evidence whether direct or circumstantial is assigned weight by the jury. They are the fact finders.

I don't want to dismantle the justice system. I like it. It usually works.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElleElle]

I know. This is one the biggest things that bugs me about this case is what did she do/say to Travis to anger him, just she can turn around and plan his murder?

I actually assumed the family knew what these emails were about .. since it sounds like nobody knows .. perhaps this will remain one of the enduring mysteries of the case. What did she do?

 

[dhunter]

Roflmao! Sounds like Philly after a sporting event!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL OMG I gotta go to OZ!!!

 

[Colt46]

Holy Mackrel, watching NG and she has JA answering Jury questions. She was almost smiling at them telling her tale of how the camera rolled. Well, not rolled, bounced a few times. Her face looked like she was reading Winnie the Pooh and talking about Tigger. Oh brother. PTSD, I don't think so! Abuse, I don't think so. No smiles ever re-telling. I almost forgot what a horrid actress she is. She would be shaking like a Chihuahua and crying a river of tears if this was remotely true.

Listen Einstein, you need to study some method acting along with all your Psych books.
Stanislavski and Lee Strasberg would not be happy.

It's even worse the second time around! The biggest mistake the DT ever made was allowing the killer to take the stand. I don't think Stanislavski or Strasberg could help her - she is that bad. How the jury could contain themselves and not discuss her pathetic performance is a miracle. She cooked her own goose! (After I shot him, I didn't know I shot him, he kept lunging at me for a second and then he fell on me.) Guess she didn't notice the hole in his head and the blood oozing out! Puleeze!

 

[Truth Detector]

BBM

^THIS^

I'd put my money on Pedophilia.

Even the self-help brochures couldn't turn JA from the dark side. :notgood:

 

[FrayedKnot]

bringing this over from the previous thread.



MichaelJames
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Apple Vallley, Minnesota
Posts: 23
I remained silent as I read pages upon pages of disparraging remarks against Chris and Sky Hughes, but I can no longer keep to myself.

I have developed a relationship with Chris and he is one of the most caring, concerned, helpful and compassionate people I have ever had the fortune of getting to know.

To claim that the Hughes are somehow hungry for their own fame and glory in regards to this trial is blatantly false. Chris swore he would NOT speak to anyone until the trial was over. While I was surprised when he told me he was doing the Dr. Drew show, I was glad he was. Both Chris and Sky are in AZ now...they rented a house for a month so they could support Travis' family during these last few days of testimony and also to wait with them for a verdict. While Chris was NOT under subpoena, Sky was until just a couple of days ago. It took Wilmott two days to answer Sky's inquiry as to whether or not she could be released from her subpoena.

Chris was the executor of Travis' estate. Everyone knew how important the friendship was between the Hughes and Travis. They only did 48 Hours to talk about their friend.

Chris WAS scared for Travis...he DID try reaching him. He DID reach out to friends in the Phoenix area to do a safety check on Travis. For those on this forum who pretend to know HOW they'd react if they were in the same situation, YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you would actually do!

Chris, Sky and all other players in this nightmare are forever changed. When a few days passed between our communications, imagine my surprise when the local police showed up at my home to perform a welfare check on me! Yes, Chris had contacted them. Since Travis' death, they no longer can "wait" to find out why a person (like myself) may have gone off the grid.

The Hughes are wonderful people. There's nothing insincere or phony about either of them. People ridiculed Sky for "grinning" while she was both on 48 Hours and also on the witness stand. She was nervous! There are people whose mouths are always in an apparent frown....Sky's mouth always has a hint of a smile. It's her facial features, and NOT something sinister or manipulative!

While I understand we are all entitled to our opinions, I cannot stand judgement against people who others have never met, encountered, etc.

As for the Travis Alexander Legacy Fund, this is something very near and dear to NOT ONLY Chris, but also to Travis' family and friends. Having witnessed their most loved Travis being cast as a pedophilic sexual deviant domestic violence perpetrator has served as a motivation to bring Travis' reputation back to that of the honorable, decent, kind, generous, motivated man Travis actually was. Chris has asked me to be on the board...and I can assure all of you that Chris has no intention of taking ANY salary or monies from this fund for personal gain. It's offensive to claim otherwise.

Please be mindful as you trash Chris (and indubidably Sky after tonight's episode of Dr. Drew) that the Hughes have friends on this forum and your statements are highly offensive and hurtful to those of us who know, love and respect them.

Thank you.
__________________
Michael James

Sunny-

Thank you for reposting Michael James' post.

He is entitled to his opinion regarding the Hugheses, and other people who post respectfully are entitled to theirs.

To MJ:

I understand that the Hugheses may have friends and family members who read here. But the same might be said of Judge Stephens, or ALV, Nurmi, Willmott or the mitigation specialist. And yet we make fat jokes, play fashion police, criticize Her Honor's ineptness, I mean C'MON!

Why is is fair game on those people but the Hugheses should be tiptoed about? They have made public statements to CBS and other outlets that have opened them up to conversation. I am one of those folks who can say I trust them about as far as I can throw them. As for SH's smirk, would anyone excuse the smirk on a defense witness? NO! It would be a character flaw! But because it's Sky, it's just "nerves"? I don't think so.

Again, all opinions are welcome, but the pendulum swings both ways. The friends and families of ALL folks who have inserted themselves into this case have possibly read here. That's life. I have no wish to hurt anyone, but if the Hugheses are pained by honest, thoughtful opinions about their characters, then perhaps they should refrain from reading anything but fan mail until the case is decided.

Nothing said here has been out of line.

With respect,
-Frayed

 

[dhunter]

From what I read, Nurmi told the Hughes the letters were in Travis' own words and in his handwriting. Nurmi was "oh-so-sorry" to have to be the one to break it to them, blah, blah, blah.

The Hughes were duped by the defense. When they found out, they came out very angrily.

It wouldn't be the first dirty, underhanded trick the defense tried. Can you imagine if two of Travis' very good friends had testified "against" him out of some misguided attempt to rectify what they thought was their unfair treatment of Jodi? What a coup for the defense that would be!

At least that's what it seems Nurmi was going for. And that fits with Jodi's MO of making herself into the victim. I'm sure it was an agenda she pushed.

Just MHOO, of course.

Is it just me or does Nurmi seem as weee bit on the sleazy side?

 

[AZWatcher]

:floorlaugh:

I knew you'd get that. :drumroll:

 

[kpm]

BBM

^THIS^

I'd put my money on Pedophilia.

IMO, it had to be something really bad to him. He was utterly betrayed and I don't think it had anything to do with thier sex life or sex tapes, he could have survived that betrayal...this was something worse.

 

[Schuby]

The reason for my extreme disappointment in JSKS.

I feel you, I do. But the truth is this would have been a very different trial were the DP element gone. It's just a stretch for me to believe the whole system needs overhauling over one lying bimbo. Yes, she's insufferable, but let's not let her become something bigger than she actually is.