trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #88

[kayice]

Did that doctor say in layman's terms that Jodi doesn't have the part of PTSD where they react to sudden stimuli such as back firing, loud noises (oh say like a child abuse victim tends to react to yelling) or whatever. Huh.
Doesn't shake like a Chihuahua then? Btw, don't know about you all, but I've met some mighty, mean little Chihuahuas in my life, they don't retreat they come across the street.

 

[ndrew]

Hi Dmacky,

I also found him interesting when he first took the stand. He seemed very soothing---but after JA anyone would. The more I listened the more I began tuning out.

His testimony will be shredded on cross, too much read of his own. I mean he s statements, very little documentation. I mean he saw her the equivalent of, what, 4 times a year? You would need much more time than that to make a diagnosis. That is why he had to rely on books and articles. Hell anyone of us could read those same things and make an assumption.

I am amazed they allowed this.:banghead:

Jumping off of your post - did anyone else think his voice sounded like Dr. Michael Boden?

 

[Linda From New York]

Evidentiary Hearing today at 9:30am AZ tims (PST) = (12:30pm EST, 11:30am CST, 10:30am MST)


We will get to see Juan cross exam the good ole doc!
WS'ers around the world rejoice! :great:

And finally
Adnoid, Steely Dan, jane the dood, Manzana & Minor4th

So, it is being televised?

 

[JRS_JD2L]

Legally, JM may not be permitted to bring up this guys history. But no worries. JM will shred him anyway. I mean, of the judge is fair. IMO, she is pro defense.

Unless there is some special quirk in AZ law, JM can impeach any witness on any past bad act that has to do with dishonesty--credibility is always at issue. An ethics violation would clearly qualify. The only nuance is how far into the specifics of the violation he would be allowed to explore.

Source: I'm not a lawyer quite yet, but I am a 2L law student. :square:

 

[KMouse]

A big problem with the suggestion that JA has PTSD is that she was not seen by any health care professionals immediately after the murder.

People that are involved in critical incidents normally do not cover up their actions, flee the scene, dispose of evidence, make cover-up "normal" phone calls, and then a few hours later go hop into bed with somebody else.

There were no debriefings, no interviews, JA covered up her crime and told no one.

I am not a fan of Gus 2.0

 

[Schuby]

No one would ever hear about a confession to the defense lawyers because it's attorney-client privilege. The attorneys can't be forced to say they heard such a confession.

I think the attorneys could be disbarred only if there was evidence that the attorneys actively encouraged her to lie -- helping her phony up documents, paying a witness to lie, or something like that. I think it would be incredibly difficult to prove. I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a lawyer was charged with helping a client to lie.

In a death penalty case it would come up on first appeal. The first line of defense would be ineffective council because "my lawyer told me to lie instead of tell the truth." Slam dunk.

 

[ToothPickle Sticks]

i meant travis, napoleons daddy. i call myself our kittys mummy,weird i dunno :floorlaugh:

:seeya: Anyone know what kind of dog he is? or how old he'd be? :waitasec:

 

[G&AMom]

Maybe this part:
You have never cared about me and you have betrayed me worse than any example I could conjure. You are sick and you have scammed me.
Could be that he found out about her taping the phone sex against his knowledge?

I think that is a possibility. I'm also wondering if the tire-slashing and anonymous email to Lisa are one of the things he found out -- found out for sure, anyway, since he already suspected her.

The problem to me is that I think there's a whole lot of information we don't have. We know TA & JA emailed each other a lot and I don't think we've seen any emails, or maybe only 1 or 2. I really wish we had more.

 

[muddymcduck]

In watching Willmott's questioning of Samuels about PTSD, I couldn't help but cringe every time they made the very deliberate comparison between Jodi and both police officers and soldiers who have shot and killed in the line of duty. Willmott even felt it necessary on at least one occasion to specify that soldiers shoot the 'enemy', which seemed another not-so-subtle attempt at portraying Travis as such.

I can't claim to know the exact events of June 4th, 2008, but to compare the bravery and valor of police officers and soldiers to the craven actions of the defendant seems a great injustice to the former.

 

[Feebot]

I've always been conflicted about the Death Penalty. If I was on a Jury and they were charged as such, that the Death Penalty was on the table, I could do it.

The alternative is they have a full life in prison, and for people that think that's worse, I don't think it is, they adapt fairly well, especially women. They are alive, their families can call and visit. They are "alive".

As horrendous as that day must be when you know you will be put to death, it's maybe only that bad for you and me, the type that wouldn't murder innocent people. It's a wonder to me, the thought of getting put to death does not phase some. They think they can get away with it, or they're just nuts.

She really had a choice. She planned this for 2 weeks at least, you know if the actual plan was being mapped out, it was a thought of hers for longer than that. She had so many opportunities to change her mind and calm down and not kill him.

She caused this...

I like that there is a "step" under the table in case someone needs help getting on the table.

 

[Schuby]

I think that is a possibility. I'm also wondering if the tire-slashing and anonymous email to Lisa are one of the things he found out -- found out for sure, anyway, since he already suspected her.

The problem to me is that I think there's a whole lot of information we don't have. We know TA & JA emailed each other a lot and I don't think we've seen any emails, or maybe only 1 or 2. I really wish we had more.

I would love to have the emails.

 

[kayice]

I've always been conflicted about the Death Penalty. If I was on a Jury and they were charged as such, that the Death Penalty was on the table, I could do it.

The alternative is they have a full life in prison, and for people that think that's worse, I don't think it is, they adapt fairly well, especially women. They are alive, their families can call and visit. They are "alive".

As horrendous as that day must be when you know you will be put to death, it's maybe only that bad for you and me, the type that wouldn't murder innocent people. It's a wonder to me, the thought of getting put to death does not phase some. They think they can get away with it, or they're just nuts.

She really had a choice. She planned this for 2 weeks at least, you know if the actual plan was being mapped out, it was a thought of hers for longer than that. She had so many opportunities to change her mind and calm down and not kill him.

She caused this...

Not a big fan of the DP here either, but Jodi's own words ....that Travis' family and friends would be upset "temporarily" but he was in a better place...kept using the word "eternally". Yeah, she was the one controlling it all and he was hers then.
So as she says said Travis would do, smile and say cheese as they stick the needle in for the sociopath.

 

[Schuby]

In watching Willmott's questioning of Samuels about PTSD, I couldn't help but cringe every time they made the very deliberate comparison between Jodi and both police officers and soldiers who have shot and killed in the line of duty. Willmott even felt it necessary on at least one occasion to specify that soldiers shoot the 'enemy', which seemed another not-so-subtle attempt at portraying Travis as such.

I can't claim to know the exact events of June 4th, 2008, but to compare the bravery and valor of police officers and soldiers to the craven actions of the defendant seems a great injustice to the former.

I think that one made us all a bit queasy.

 

[Love Never Fails]

The TV coverage?
What TV coverage?
Seems like any true life trials will become a thing of the past unless you can watch live feed over your computer or whatever device you happen to own.
Trying to tolerate commercials while getting the latest is also a real thrill.
Commercials out weigh the actual trial.

Commercials equate to money. It is all about money. We will be in the dark ages soon enough, taking away live trials, taking away our constitutional rights. It will go down from there.

 

[TigerBalm]

So, it is being televised?

It sure is! :great:

 

[KittyMomOf5]

Unless there is some special quirk in AZ law, JM can impeach any witness on any past bad act that has to do with dishonesty--credibility is always at issue. An ethics violation would clearly qualify. The only nuance is how far into the specifics of the violation he would be allowed to explore.

Source: I'm not a lawyer quite yet, but I am a 2L law student. :square:

Congrats! You're getting there! :rocker:

 

[LambChop]

Thanks LambChop, I only watched about 40 minutes of yesterdays testimony of Samuels. I thought I heard him say from reading her journal she was a passivist.

Yet when I was reading the posts from yesterday I kept reading he called her a pacifist, and couldn't for the life of me figure out why he would be testifying about a voluntary belief as opposed to a psychological behavior.

Did he say anything about dependent personality disorder in his testimony or was it all pstd?

Did he address the actual murder yesterday or "Event" as he was referring to it in his first half hour yesterday?

I could not listen to his whole testimony. I took psych classes in college and I'm not an expert but I know he is not either. He is basing his testimony on what she has told him, answers she has given him to questions he has asked her and information from her journals. He has in no way acted as a therapist to her which is where someone would be able to find the truth if she was suffering from PTSD. He interviewed her and made an observation irrespective of the fact that she is a known liar. His observations mean nothing when you add in the factor that she is an accomplished liar and has been for years. He is not qualified to form an opinion on his experience because it appears he has none....he's reading from a book. We could do that. It's as if he asked her: 1) do you shake when you are under pressure; 2) do you sometimes space out, go into a fog when confronted with unpleasant events; 3) do you find you often can't remember after someone yells at you making you feel your brain is scrambled; etc. If he asked her similar questions while he was "testing" her, Jodi knew the answers. It's common sense. He projects that he expects her to be honest with her answers and he knows she was not. But that will not be part of his testimony because his website tells us he will help her and that is the only testimony he will be willing to give. He will not discuss anything negative about her. jmo

 

[Nali87]

I wish we had the state's rebuttal witness list. (If it has been made already)

 

[KMouse]

In watching Willmott's questioning of Samuels about PTSD, I couldn't help but cringe every time they made the very deliberate comparison between Jodi and both police officers and soldiers who have shot and killed in the line of duty. Willmott even felt it necessary on at least one occasion to specify that soldiers shoot the 'enemy', which seemed another not-so-subtle attempt at portraying Travis as such.

I can't claim to know the exact events of June 4th, 2008, but to compare the bravery and valor of police officers and soldiers to the craven actions of the defendant seems a great injustice to the former.

I agree. The comparison infuriated me. I had to step away yesterday. I'm listening to it on YouTube now.

 

[Angelina Frost]

Since the judge has allowed the DT to put on a dog and pony show for the last few weeks, is there any reason to believe she WON'T let this bs in?

She'll have exactly zero credibility if she allows them to backdoor previously inadmissible info. I understand the motivation to protect a verdict, but her conduct borders on DT butt kissing. :furious: