trial day 45: the defense continues its case in chief #135

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the Twitter story and Jodi talking to Don on the phone - does anyone know what type of phone privileges inmates are given? I wouldn't think they would be allowed to use the phone whenever they please.
 


We are allowing the link to the articles about cyberstalking and witness intimidation so that you may see the severity of the problem we're facing.

This is NOT an open invitation to express your views on the matter one way or the other.

If you have made disparaging remarks about the defense team or their witnesses, go back and delete your comments or alert the post and ask that a moderator delete it for you.

In the past week, we've been issuing 24-timeouts for name calling and disparaging remarks. Future timeouts for this type of violation will be extended to include at least 3 days of trial coverage.

Please check your posts now.

Thank you.

Dear Mods,
You have plenty of work to do, so please tell me how to go about self-deleting a post correctly? Thanks so much!
 
Re-posting, doors closed on me!

I wouldn't call any of what is happening on social media and the media witness tampering. I also don't feel the bad in the slightest for ALV or the DT. From a historical perspective, the purpose of an open court is that "justice is not done in the dark."

Justice would not be done if ALV and the DT were allowed to trash the good name of the victim for an admitted murderer which could lead to her acquittal or a lesser punishment than the community (as represented by the jury) feels that she deserves.

Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not necessarily the right way to express outrage over these proceedings, but the community has a right to express themselves. The limitations on those rights come only when someone could be done actual physical harm. Otherwise, no one ever died from hurt feelings and panic attacks.

If ALV did not want to be exposed then she should have turned the case down like the 11 other experts. If she wanted to continue on in her career as she had before, then she should have opted out. If the DT did not want to be exposed to ridicule for their tactics, then they should have tried this case honorably like so many other defense attorneys do for reprehensible clients every day. Since they chose not to, the chickens are coming home to roost and hopefully future hacks, quacks and hired guns will think more of themselves then to "de-edify' the judicial process.

Truth is not found in dark spaces or back rooms...sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

Thank you for being brave enough to express this. You have given me the courage to say that I resent bitterly that one journalist in Arizona has posted an article on line that has gone viral, forcing me to become impotent when it comes to airing my opinions on the credibility of testimony given in this trial.

With respect to Ms. LaViolette, I will add that I think we will discover, in due course, that she brought some pre-existing medical issues with her to this trial, that do not include anxiety attacks.
 
Boy...not sure what to say. This is going to be difficult. Can we give our opinions on the conclusions of witnesses, or if they are credible? Or our personal experiences with DV or can we disagree with the defense's conclusions?

errrrr. Need help here.

I am seriously afraid this kind of testimony can be used as a legitimate defense
for murder. 'Trash the victim and make yourself into a bigger victim to justify murder'.
Just takes a large pocket book.
And the true victim will never be able to defend themselves against character
assassination.
 
I want to say this, without giving away the person/people I heard things from. I have a mentor who happens to be a therapist who is married to a professor at Cal State Long Beach.

This mentor travels in the same professional circles as ALV. According to my friend (and another person) ALV is extremely well liked and well respected and I have the utmost respect (personally) for the individuals I heard this from.

My mentor said she consider's ALV to be compassionate, intuitive, generous and very good at the work she does. She is apparently well liked among her colleagues.

I have come to my own conclusions as to why ALV chose to believe and testify for the defendant and I am weighing that with what I have heard about her.

I am sorry for her decision but have to believe it came from a well intentioned place. She was manipulated- wether or not I believe she allowed herself to be- I feel compassion for her as a woman, partner, mother, professional, and fellow community member.

I don't want to see anyone end up in the hospital or worse over this- well...except the defendant!

She, like so many others, was manipulated by Jodi. When the trial is over and she looks at all the videos, ALV will get a better picture of what she was dealing with. Jodi is a monster...and ALV will see that in the end.

:twocents:
 
I want to say this, without giving away the person/people I heard things from. I have a mentor who happens to be a therapist who is married to a professor at Cal State Long Beach.

This mentor travels in the same professional circles as ALV. According to my friend (and another person) ALV is extremely well liked and well respected and I have the utmost respect (personally) for the individuals I heard this from.

My mentor said she consider's ALV to be compassionate, intuitive, generous and very good at the work she does. She is apparently well liked among her colleagues.

I have come to my own conclusions as to why ALV chose to believe and testify for the defendant and I am weighing that with what I have heard about her.

I am sorry for her decision but have to believe it came from a well intentioned place. She was manipulated- wether or not I believe she allowed herself to be- I feel compassion for her as a woman, partner, mother, professional, and fellow community member.

I don't want to see anyone end up in the hospital or worse over this- well...except the defendant!

Frigga, I was somebody who all but begged people on bended knee to wait and see with ALV, wait until she started testifying. When people started criticizing her when she got on the stand, before she even said anything, I was pretty annoyed. But my opinion of her has done a complete 180 -- she's lied, she's defamed, she's demeaned -- there just aren't words.

To quote one of my favorite writers, Alistair Cooke, he made this comment about King Edward VIII (the one who abdicated his throne for the woman he loved): The most damning thing you can say about somebody is that they are at their best when the going is good.

That's how I feel about ALV. She's at her best when she gets to tell her beliefs. Challenge her, and she'll throw anybody under the bus, including Travis' dead parents.
 
I agree with much of what you've written -- especially where it concerns "expert" witnesses who appear for pay. But, isn't the immediate issue that we've been asked not to express ourselves in that way at this site? We all know that the right to unlimited free speech exists in the context of freedom from government censorship and doesn't extend to private websites who provide a forum and ask that members follow posting rules and limitations.

I definitely wasn't talking about WS, I can definitely restrain myself!! I'm talking about the DT's motion for mistrial and the new histrionics in the media today about how social media is cyber stalking ALV.

Editing my post to clarify...
 
Regarding ALV.... I certainly don't wish any harm on her. I don't think people should harass her in public or online.

Having said that I do not feel sorry for her. She needed to go to the hospital due to anxiety? How about Travis' family having to hear lies about their loved one? How about hearing Travis being slandered! What about their heartache, sadness and anxiety? We have all seen the crime scene and autopsy photos. We've heard ALV's completely biased testimony. JM's method of dealing with her on cross speaks volumes.

ALV is purposely trying to stand in the way of Justice for Travis. I do see things in black and white at times and this case necessitates such a view. I'm taking time off from everything else in my life only for Travis. I don't find this trial to be entertaining. Quite the opposite. I support JM a 100%. My compassion is for Travis and his family alone.

Great post and so true. One day this experience for ALV will be a faded memory. For the Alexander Family and friends. Not so much. Everytime the camera pans to the Family I am in awe.
 
I want to say this, without giving away the person/people I heard things from. I have a mentor who happens to be a therapist who is married to a professor at Cal State Long Beach.

This mentor travels in the same professional circles as ALV. According to my friend (and another person) ALV is extremely well liked and well respected and I have the utmost respect (personally) for the individuals I heard this from.

My mentor said she consider's ALV to be compassionate, intuitive, generous and very good at the work she does. She is apparently well liked among her colleagues.

I have come to my own conclusions as to why ALV chose to believe and testify for the defendant and I am weighing that with what I have heard about her.

I am sorry for her decision but have to believe it came from a well intentioned place. She was manipulated- wether or not I believe she allowed herself to be- I feel compassion for her as a woman, partner, mother, professional, and fellow community member.

I don't want to see anyone end up in the hospital or worse over this- well...except the defendant!

That is all spot on, but my problem with ALV starts at the point where she refuses to believe there is a possibility she may have been manipulated. A professional would want to consider that.

I'd like to know the context your friends have seen ALV in. I doubt it's this one. Seminar speaker and expert evaluator/witness are worlds apart.
 
Let's play nice today, kids.

I've never had a time out and I know I don't want one. I wouldn't be able to survive without coming here on trial days!!!!!!

How the hades have I had three and you've had none!!! :snooty:
 
I definitely wasn't talking about WS, I can definitely restrain myself!! I'm talking about the DT's motion for mistrial and the new histrionics in the media today about how social media is cyber stalking ALV.

Editing my post to clarify...

Off topic, but thanks for your legal expertise! I always find it very helpful.
 
I want to say this, without giving away the person/people I heard things from. I have a mentor who happens to be a therapist who is married to a professor at Cal State Long Beach.

This mentor travels in the same professional circles as ALV. According to my friend (and another person) ALV is extremely well liked and well respected and I have the utmost respect (personally) for the individuals I heard this from.

My mentor said she consider's ALV to be compassionate, intuitive, generous and very good at the work she does. She is apparently well liked among her colleagues.

I have come to my own conclusions as to why ALV chose to believe and testify for the defendant and I am weighing that with what I have heard about her.

I am sorry for her decision but have to believe it came from a well intentioned place. She was manipulated- wether or not I believe she allowed herself to be- I feel compassion for her as a woman, partner, mother, professional, and fellow community member.

I don't want to see anyone end up in the hospital or worse over this- well...except the defendant!


I understand Frigga, but that was before JA and this is now. What I have seen her do is not acceptable. And I think deep down inside she might be now realizing it but it is to late.
Also she knows what manipulation is being an advocate of domestic abuse. In other words she is well aware of what she is doing and has done during this trial.
Of course this is my opinion and I will stand by it.
I feel so bad for Travis's surviving family and friends to have to watch this.:moo:
 
I don't believe I've said anything constituting name calling; certainly no threats.

I have expressed my disdain for the DT and their witnesses concerning their (imo) disgraceful tactics.

I have used humor on occasion, made up words tied to various persons, to express my feelings. At other times I've stated what I believe their actions to be, and opined on why they would choose to do what they've done in the defendant's case. No, it wasn't flattering.

While threatening harm is completely unjustified, anyone who becomes a public person will be scrutinized by the public, and not always to their liking.

Perhaps a better clarification of what is/is not appropriate, from the mods view, would help us censor our posts accordingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
846
Total visitors
1,051

Forum statistics

Threads
625,967
Messages
18,517,239
Members
240,914
Latest member
CalvinJ
Back
Top