trial day 43: the defense continues its case in chief #130

[outofstatelawyer]

Anyone find it odd that the DT hasn't put either parent of JA on the stand? Her mom could have said she was wrong for using a wooden spoon, she's become more educated on discipline, etc.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

JM said " 14 onward..." YES.

 

[verbonica]

Umm, a fellow citizen of Yreka was on Dr Drew last nite, said the killer is known to be a liar.

Well, she tried perhaps to say that... if Dr. D. wouldn't have kept interrupting and talking over her!

 

[miss plum]

Yay Judge, yay JM, STFU JW.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Jodie looks agitated.

Just a guess, but perhaps she just saw the interview with her father and Det. Flores for the first time.

 

[Deleted member 95475]

:floorlaugh:Oh that was so worth starting late - SHODDY WORK!

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I should have trusted. Juan said 14 and ONWARD!! yeah!!

 

[Timber]

JA looks pizzed off.
Willmott too.

Sorry defense team, your witness opened the door to this testimony being allowed in.
ALV is the one who claimed JA was never deceitful before the murder.

 

[Weebles]

 

[JRS_JD2L]

Actually Wilma isn't being truthful the father of JA said she has not been truthful since she was 14.

Meaning she has been lying to them for 14 plus years.

Bad call by the judge.

Exactly...but did you hear Juan got that in:

"And with respect to that statement, it was regarding the defendant at the age of 14--and onward, right?"

JW didn't catch it.

 

[Donnareit]

Deja vu.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Play the victim, did I hear Juan correctly HA!

 

[corundogs]

Unless and until we know for sure that Jodi's father was, indeed, abusive, I think that the defense should refrain from stating it as fact. Just because Jodi told the court that her dad abused her, there is no corroboration of its truthfulness. :moo:

THANK YOU!!

JW stood up there and said it as known fact in the court room.

I don't believe that is the case.

I have often seen people say (not just this case, in general) "get them on the stand under oath".

What makes people think just because someone is under oath they are telling the truth?????

 

[Novice Seeker]

What's the point, seriously, JW is still going to object, stomp her foot, argue with the judge, make the judge instruct JM on how to do his job:furious::furious::furious::furious:

 

[scmom]

Some, are we to understand she was a liar before she was 14?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Oooh ... she is so angry and wrong today!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Seriously, judge???!! You listened and agreed with Wilmott's complete pile of bs??? Another shame!!

Ok, at least she's letting Juan ask about it.

I thought she was agreeing with JW that it would be prejudiced against Jodi.

 

[KBisMe]

ALV is looking pretty beaten down!!

 

[rose222]

I understand that, thank you! LOL

 

[AZlawyer]

But if Jodi's parents are answering questions about their daughter, how is that hearsay?

However, I will just say OK thanks for the explanation.

If her parents were on the stand answering the questions, it would not be hearsay. On tape, it is hearsay.

If they get on the stand and say something different, the tape could then be played to impeach them. Still hearsay, but an exception would apply.