trial day 44: the defense continues its case in chief #134

[josie1986]

I didn't know Alyce went to the hospital last week due to all the stress!




Wow. Didn't she realize what she was getting herself into? I know she's not the brightest crayon in the box but, dang! She's coming off extremely unprepared and unknowing!



This article goes on to mention, Alyce, Wilmott and the other staff member were seen/photographed eating dinner last night and that supposedly is considered witness tampering.



http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/2073067

pfff hardly witness tampering,did anyone approach her? no

people are allowed an opinion,freedom of speech and all that.

its hardly disparaged her from killing travis a 5th time

:furious::furious::furious::furious: :banghead: :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[cityslick]

This article bothers me. I don't give a hoot if Wilmott goes to diner with ALV, no big deal, so what. As always, it seems political correctness leans toward punishing the many to kiss butt to a few. I am way tired of it. If the author would have taken a bit more of an investigative approach, they could have, through checking into actual court cases, concluded that it is not the cameras that should be banned from the courtroom but rather it should be the so called "experts" (specifically head doctors and social activists).

Since our justice system leans toward protecting the rights of the accused, the camera allows for the truth to be seen. Since the justice system has this built in lean, what we get are hired guns who will say anything to get paid or to just to further their agenda. We also get lawyers who are not suppose to subjorn perjury but routinely do so. What we get are frivilous motions, more sidebars than testimony and a majority of evidence excluded because with this lean, much of it is considered too prejudicial.

Bull baloney - if an accused's activities are so egregious, the jury should be allowed to know it, as that is who the accused truly is. But yet what we get are dimwits who want cameras removed from the court to ensure the public is kept without knowledge and therefore ruly and subject to sucumbing to the game. The courts and their activities should never be kept secret from the public they supposedly serve and protect.

If experts such as ALV and Doc Samuels can't take the heat then perhaps they should consider being first honest and true to their professions, and secondly being fair instead of tilted toward protecting those that would cause harm. Yesterday, someone (and I am sorry I do not remember who) pointed out how frightening it was to think of how many children could no longer see their fathers because of ALV. I was deeply saddened by that thought as I watched ALV rail on men as being nothing but dildo's with heartbeats. Perhaps members of the press need to consider a few things before putting stupidity to paper.

BBM

Not if stupidity sells papers (or draws eyeballs to tv = ratings). The media is interested in money first, everything else second. Sometimes exposing the truth and drawing more people to watch your newscast are not one and the same.

 

[raisincharlie]

I think that is who it is. Remember, he was asked to leave the courtroom because defense planned to call him?

I don't think the defense issued the subpeona so they could call him to the stand and show his video of Travis shooting a gun. Instead I believe it was issued to shut him up and keep him off of HLN and repeating that Travis did not own a gun.

 

[raisincharlie]

BBM

Not if stupidity sells papers (or draws eyeballs to tv = ratings). The media is interested in money first, everything else second. Sometimes exposing the truth and drawing more people to watch your newscast are not one and the same.

You are quite right - sad to say.

 

[Ricki]

I posted this in the observation thread but I am also posting it here. Interesting read.

Regarding stalking:
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/0...-is-stalking-and-can-men-be-stalked-by-women/

Who engages in stalking behaviors more? Men or women?

Female perpetrators engage in stalking and harassment behaviors with as much frequency as male offenders do. Why don’t we hear about it? Because most woman-centric (i.e., feminist) domestic violence groups and mainstream media outlets are woefully silent when it comes to male victims of abusive women. Worse yet, female stalking behaviors are portrayed as “funny” or “cute,” for example, Confessions of a Facebook Stalker (That’s Me) and Confessions of a Facebook Stalker.

When a woman is actually acknowledged as a perpetrator, she’s portrayed as having been wronged by some man and in need of our help and understanding. When a man engages in the same behaviors, he’s portrayed as a menace to society who should be locked up. Most DV groups exemplify what can only be described as a one-way road paved with double standards when it comes to matters of abuse and the condemnation and criminality of said behaviors.

If your wife or girlfriend are guilty of these behaviors, you need to understand that this is abuse and it’s wrong.

 

[pferrin]

This article bothers me. I don't give a hoot if Wilmott goes to diner with ALV, no big deal, so what. As always, it seems political correctness leans toward punishing the many to kiss butt to a few. I am way tired of it. If the author would have taken a bit more of an investigative approach, they could have, through checking into actual court cases, concluded that it is not the cameras that should be banned from the courtroom but rather it should be the so called "experts" (specifically head doctors and social activists).

Since our justice system leans toward protecting the rights of the accused, the camera allows for the truth to be seen. Since the justice system has this built in lean, what we get are hired guns who will say anything to get paid or to just to further their agenda. We also get lawyers who are not suppose to subjorn perjury but routinely do so. What we get are frivilous motions, more sidebars than testimony and a majority of evidence excluded because with this lean, much of it is considered too prejudicial.

Bull baloney - if an accused's activities are so egregious, the jury should be allowed to know it, as that is who the accused truly is. But yet what we get are dimwits who want cameras removed from the court to ensure the public is kept without knowledge and therefore ruly and subject to sucumbing to the game. The courts and their activities should never be kept secret from the public they supposedly serve and protect.

If experts such as ALV and Doc Samuels can't take the heat then perhaps they should consider being first honest and true to their professions, and secondly being fair instead of tilted toward protecting those that would cause harm. Yesterday, someone (and I am sorry I do not remember who) pointed out how frightening it was to think of how many children could no longer see their fathers because of ALV. I was deeply saddened by that thought as I watched ALV rail on men as being nothing but dildo's with heartbeats. Perhaps members of the press need to consider a few things before putting stupidity to paper.

Well stated Raisin.. Thank you.

O/t hows racing?

 

[momof7]

I don't think the defense issued the subpeona so they could call him to the stand and show his video of Travis shooting a gun. Instead I believe it was issued to shut him up and keep him off of HLN and repeating that Travis did not own a gun.

But why would they do that? Only the general public is supposed to be viewing HLN.

The jury is the only people they should be concerned with. I understand that not being sequestered is an issue for them, but honestly we are day 45. That is a long time. We aren't even finished with the DT CIC. At this point it could be May before they are even given a chance to deliberate.

All of these motions for mistrial for jury conduct and prosectional misconduct is just throwing information the jury's way. The DT is giving the jury the impression they don't trust them. If I were on that jury I would be even more inclined to not listen/speak/look at anything just to prove them wrong.

Kelly

 

[JayB12]

When I heard LAV's ringtone, I instantly thought it was the following. Can anybody confirm if it is the same tune?
I used to use it maybe five years ago as an alarm ring tone.

(Actual song is PPK - Ressurection Robots)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4_sZK3HXs8

ALV strikes me as the type of person that wouldn't know how to put a ringtone on her phone and what we heard was the default ringtone. You know, she's not really into those fancy schmancy computers and such.

 

[momof7]

ALV strikes me as the type of person that wouldn't know how to put a ringtone on her phone and what we heard was the default ringtone. You know, she's not really into those fancy schmancy computers and such.

She is probably like me...my teen son suprises me sometimes by attaching ringtones. I wouldn't know how to attach a ringtone to a phone number if you paid me.

Kelly

 

[Turnadot]

I think it's ridiculous to auto assume a guilty verdict no matter how slam dunk a case is. As long as verdicts are judged by just your average person off the street, there could always be one, two or twelve who's opinion is rock solid in the other direction.

Excellent post, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM

BINGO!! However, in my (non-expert) opinion, it did not go over well. She gave as good as she got, and her condescending tone and hostility toward JM was blatantly obvious. This witness is no shrinking LaViolette.

I believe that will be a plus for Juan. There was absolutely no reason for this so called expert to be so combative, antagonistic, and condescending. She did this almost immediately even when Juan was asking her simple questions in a soft tone. So imo it went very well for Juan.

Jurors do not like combative witnesses and they certainly don't like witnesses that evade the questions and never give a direct answer. I have seen jurors talk about hostile witnesses before after the trials are over and they like the witnesses who were forthright which ALV certainly was not. The jury will notice she is only 'nice' to the side that hired her and a snarky bully to the other side.

She came across as having something to hide by not wanting to answer the questions directly. Even though she says she is an expert she doesn't even give in on something that is obviously true and that shows she has a hardened bias which she has promoted all of her career.

I imagine the jury questions will be along the lines of questions Juan asked her and either she refused to answer or went out in the weeds where the answer was irrelevant to the question asked.

Lets see if her brash demeanor changes when she is answering the jury questions. I hope they ask her to answer 'yes or no.'

I know now why Wilmott is the one doing the direct of this biased expert who acts like a clone of JA. It is quite obvious ALV doesn't like men.........period.

IMO

 

[laniefi]

Real life got away with me yesterday during the trial so I missed most of it

Then last night we had a bunch of really severe thunderstorms so my chihuahua tried to crawl under my skin all night long, shaking like crazy.

Mornin' all!

 

[LambChop]

During the argument about the backpack, ALV seems to side with Jodi but never mentions that Travis had every right to follow her into his bathroom. Jodi seemed to feel at ease going in there even though there was a bathroom downstairs where she could have easily gone to put on her makeup (as she claims was the reason for going upstairs). Jodi is about drama but ALV is unable to see this in her when Jodi getting angry because someone took articles from her bag would have been a natural response from any average woman. ALV believing Travis had no right to go into his own bathroom to get her back downstairs so they could leave is unbelievable. It was his home. Jodi did not live there. ALV is looking at Jodi as a partner in that home setting. She was not, but only a guest within his home at the time.

 

[raisincharlie]

But why would they do that? Only the general public is supposed to be viewing HLN.

The jury is the only people they should be concerned with. I understand that not being sequestered is an issue for them, but honestly we are day 45. That is a long time. We aren't even finished with the DT CIC. At this point it could be May before they are even given a chance to deliberate.

All of these motions for mistrial for jury conduct and prosectional misconduct is just throwing information the jury's way. The DT is giving the jury the impression they don't trust them. If I were on that jury I would be even more inclined to not listen/speak/look at anything just to prove them wrong.

Kelly

Why would they call him to the stand if what he has to say is :"Travis did not own a gun" ?

 

[laniefi]

She is probably like me...my teen son suprises me sometimes by attaching ringtones. I wouldn't know how to attach a ringtone to a phone number if you paid me.

Kelly

Can we take guesses on what ALV's ringtone is?

Here is my vote:

[ame="http://vimeo.com/45992995"]Hall and Oates - Maneater on Vimeo[/ame]

 

[LucyVino]

I'm disgusted. 1500 followers.

Hmmm could she be using Twitter on JW's phone too?

 

[Nhic]

CD Schwartz ‏@CandicePuckeys 1 Apr #JodiArias photo of how she will look by the time this trial is over!!




:floorlaugh:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

During the argument about the backpack, ALV seems to side with Jodi but never mentions that Travis had every right to follow her into his bathroom. Jodi seemed to feel at ease going in there even though there was a bathroom downstairs where she could have easily gone to put on her makeup (as she claims was the reason for going upstairs). Jodi is about drama but ALV is unable to see this in her when Jodi getting angry because someone took articles from her bag would have been a natural response from any average woman. ALV believing Travis had no right to go into his own bathroom to get her back downstairs so they could leave is unbelievable. It was his home. Jodi did not live there. ALV is looking at Jodi as a partner in that home setting. She was not, but only a guest within his home at the time.

One main point she has tried to create, which isn't factual.... is the relationship and the closeness between these two. It was not a partner relationship and I really don't think it ever was. It is like she has them engaged with intentions to marry and we all know that is bs.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

I believe that will be a plus for Juan. There was absolutely no reason for this so called expert to be so combative, antagonistic, and condescending. She did this almost immediately even when Juan was asking her simple questions in a soft tone. So imo it went very well for Juan.

Jurors do not like combative witnesses and they certainly don't like witnesses that evade the questions and never give a direct answer. I have seen jurors talk about hostile witnesses before after the trials are over and they like the witnesses who were forthright which ALV certainly was not. The jury will notice she is only 'nice' to the side that hired her and a snarky bully to the other side.

She came across as having something to hide by not wanting to answer the questions directly. Even though she says she is an expert she doesn't even give in on something that is obviously true and that shows she has a hardened bias which she has promoted all of her career.
I imagine the jury questions will be along the lines of questions Juan asked her and either she refused to answer or went out in the weeds where the answer was irrelevant to the question asked.

Lets see if her brash demeanor changes when she is answering the jury questions. I hope they ask her to answer 'yes or no.'

I know now why Wilmott is the one doing the direct of this biased expert who acts like a clone of JA. It is quite obvious ALV doesn't like men.........period.

IMO

One of the things that ALV proved with her testimony was that her continuum could have applied to Travis just as well as Jodi. Maybe more so with Jodi because she was doing all the chasing. Also I hope JM puts some of those women on the stand to show Travis talked to a lot of women that he was not chasing. He certainly was still talking with his ex and was close to her. It was just who he was. It indicates he was the type that did not want hard feelings when a relationship ended and still continued to have contact. I still can't get over that ALV thought Travis' flirting was abusive when he was not in any type of a serious relationship.

 

[momof7]

Can we take guesses on what ALV's ringtone is?

Here is my vote:

Hall and Oates - Maneater on Vimeo

Ok..I know its terrible to laugh...but this was my laugh for the day!

Kelly