trial day 33: the defense continues its case in chief #94

[MagicRose99]

Now, why didn't the judge do this for JA? "Please listen to the question..."

 

[Ricki]

He took a quick course on how to answer a prosecutor last night with Jodi.

Juan is going to start pounding. He is getting angry with Samuels.

 

[Pensfan]

LOL "Jodi ultimately revealed she had anal intercourse with two other people." (Another lie she spewed in front of the jury)

 

[katiecoolady]

Oh dear the smackdown continues....GO JUAN!

 

[meanddblj]

why is Nurmi even there? What is he contributing? Besides a lazy bum stance?

 

[Mr.Midnight]

maybe Juan could draw him a picture maybe he could understand better

 

[JusticeJunkie]

doc didn't supplement or amend his report after he found out that information he relied on was false?

exactly

 

[LotusPawprint]

I love Juan's tone. He's so spot on with expressiveness and emphasis. The anti-Nurmi!

 

[Sweetiemom]

Samuels is back to his old condescending act. What an idiot!

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Samuels is deliberately misunderstanding the questions.

 

[Weebles]

he wrote an addendum but did not include the new info. wtf?

 

[Annie]

When do we stop calling him an expert? This is pitiful.

 

[luvtenniss]

How long do you think it will take today to knock his attitude down a notch or two? And JA needs to stop smirking!!

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I can't believe this guy is lying for her and playing dumb. Unbelievable!:banghead:

 

[Nali87]

I see the good doctor and defense had time to regroup yesterday. I wish JM had enough time FINISH him off yesterday. :furious:

 

[rose222]

JM is brilliant!!!

 

[gloomy]

What is wrong with this doc?? Why can't he just be honest...:facepalm:

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

She's very rigid and robotic-like. Her head is held unnaturally high and outward.

Because of this robotic-like stiffness, this is why her arms, hands/fingers look so strange. Everything she does or movement that she makes, is done with intent. Even her conversational skills and Jodi-jargon. She just doesn't flow naturally, you know?
She's definitely not hard-wired right!!

LOL!!! Wait until her right eye pops out and you can see all the wires!!:jail:

 

[mayqueen]

What is a 'speaking objection', mayqueen?

It's when, rather than simply saying something succint like "Objection: relevance", you say "Objection: relevance. Blahblahblahblah explanation blahblahblah. Blahblahblahblah." Nurmi does it constantly, Wilmott less often.

Yesterday(?), Juan made a brief speaking speaking objection, and Wilmott blurted out in exasperation "Judge, can we not have speaking objections?!"

Definition of speaking objection from USLegal.com:

Speaking objection is an objection that contains more information than needed by the judge to sustain or overrule it. It is often in the form of an argument. Many judges prohibit lawyers from using speaking objections, and sometimes even from stating the grounds for objections, as it can influence the jury.

An interruption of the opposing counsel with a speech rather than a simple, succinct objection stating a rule or point of evidence is also referred to as speaking objection.

 

[scmom]

New information not included, ignored. ETHICS again.