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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #561
somebody help me......let's list all the lies the good doc knew about:

anal sex
computer pics
Ninjas
 
  • #562
" You chose not to include these inconsistencies, why, because you liked her?" :floorlaugh:
 
  • #563
Look at Wilmont. She is watching Juan like a hawk.
 
  • #564
This is better than yesterday! Samuels is lying more and getting hammered more!
 
  • #565
how can it be hearsay when it was part of a police interview that was taped? Isn't that part of Jodi's defense?
 
  • #566
Heresay?
 
  • #567
The amount of commercials on HLN is ridiculous.
 
  • #568
darnit ...i went to potty and missed it...what just happened?
 
  • #569
No Juan, he didn't follow up on ANYTHING!!! His career is circling the drain as we speak.
 
  • #570
There were many images on that computer and there may or may not be reasons why . . .I saw that as irrelevant in this case. . . you indicated to me that the defendant told you lots of images of women's breasts on the computer?
yes
but I tell you there are none - that is an inconsistency
yes
does that give you pause given there are inconsistencies
no it was not germane to the examination
doesn't matter to you there are inconsistencies in this case as applied to the defendant
they didn't affect my opinion

whether or not they would give you pause to at least dig a little deeper in this case
yes some that were significant to the case . . . those I did not
You say I can look @ something and generally if they lie to me . . . about something you consider irrelevant then it is no harm no foul
obviously if it is important to the aspects to the case I am studying
I am not asking about that
I am trying to answer
Judge he is non-responsive

Pictures of breasts are not illegal - they did not come into the case I did not consider it.
are you done with your answer?
I have partially answered

Hypothetical irrelevant issue and client lied to you
Generally speaking not in this case , an individual lied to you about an irrelevant aspect you are telling us it doesn't matter to you because you deemed it was irrelevant.

if someone lied about a pertinent and important fact in the investigation I would consider it an important fact . . . .

they could lie to you 15 times about what you consider irrelevant . . if they were 50-60 points but I didn't see any other except this one

you didn't see any inconsistancies - yes or no

anal intercourse with only TA? . . . with Bobby Juarez and Daryl Brewer . ..
yes that would be important
if those facts are true would that affect your answer?
more info did come out but I had already written my report by then .. .in my report it reflects what she told me initially . .
you had not written the report when this issue came out . . . you wrote an addendum .
yes but my addendum was on the new material
new material - you wrote addendum but issue of anal intercourse came later

new material that came after your first addedendum . . . something you can add when something new came to light . . . involved an inconsistency . . . you chose to not write a new addendum -
I did write a new one but chose not include
you chose to conceal or ignore it
I ignored it - I didn't see it as relevant to my addendum
but it was relevant to your report
yes - it was my judgement call

you had formed a sort of relationship with the defendant because you liked her . . .why would you do that?
object

focus of my addendum was
isn't it true that you chose not to include these inconsistencies in your written report
yes
other things too
many other things

photos in the shower . . . she told you TA requested the photos
look @ interview w/Det Flores where that issue was addressed?
yes
was there discussion about the victim and his reluctance to have his picture taken?
objection!

(remember when JA said oh TA would not like pictures of him in the shower/bathroom . . . during the interrogation? . .. . . JM is ready with video clips I will just bet!)
 
  • #571
burnttoast.JPG

Stick a fork in him folks...he is DONE!
 
  • #572
  • #573
Wow,snarkiness abounding in the courtroom this am.
 
  • #574
Sounds like the good doctor is screwed!

And man did Jennifer jump up mighty quick when Juan started on this series of questions.
 
  • #575
  • #576
How does the quack get to determine what is relevant in this case?


He and the defense decide what strategy will most likely get their client off and they rule all of the incriminating carp as irrelevant. I think that's the policy.
 
  • #577
What was he talking about when there was a hearsay objection?
 
  • #578
I have a feeling that a big part of what he did in the 12 visits to Jodi was coach her how to answer while on the stand cause he is answering just like she was when she was up there
 
  • #579
12:54 PM

TwitterChris Williams @chriswnews

Juan Martinez asks why Dr Samuels didn't update report asking if he had relationship w/ #JodiArias. #Arias atty objects. Sustained
 
  • #580
What was the point of the addendum if he didn't add new information? :waitasec:

Because we and the jury are just plain stupid folk and don't understand big words and diagnosis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
1,436
Total visitors
1,492

Forum statistics

Threads
632,382
Messages
18,625,498
Members
243,125
Latest member
JosBay
Back
Top